DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 3-6, 11, and 12 in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer side wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be read as "an outer side wall" in line 2.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the multiple groups of wing plates (3)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be read as "the at least one group of wingplates (3)" in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 includes the limitation “an entire soil” which is unclear and indefinite as it is unknown what is considered the entire soil. It could just include the soil under the anchor or the entire sea floor. Furthermore, claim 3 also includes the limitation “a completely remolded soil” which leads the examiner to believe that the limitation is referring to soil that is not remolded. Therefore, for the purposes of examination the limitation “an entire soil” will be viewed as “undisturbed soil.”
Claim 4 includes the formula for antitorque bearing strength of a single wing plate, however, it does not define the variable z in the equation. It is also unclear which parts of the integrand depend on z. For the purposes of examination z will be viewed as the length of the wing plate as seen in figure 4 of the filed drawings.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35
U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 does not further limit the annular anchor. Instead, it claims a method for calculating antitorque bearing strength of the annular anchor, which makes it possible to infringe claim 3 without infringing upon claim 1. Claims 2-6, 11, and 12, depend upon claim 3 and also do not further limit the annular anchor. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 3, the following bold limitations are considered abstract:
“A method for calculating antitorque bearing strength of the annular anchor, comprising a step of calculating antitorque bearing strength of the anchor body (1) of the annular anchor described in claim 1, wherein its calculation formula is as follows:
T
0
=
α
s
u
π
D
2
L
2
where,
α
is a partial remodeling factor of soil strength,
α
=1 for an entire soil, and
α
=
1
s
t
for a completely-remolded soil,
s
t
is sensitivity of soil;
s
u
is shearing strength of soil without drainage; L is the height of the annular anchor; D is the outer diameter of the annular anchor.”
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Calculating by the claimed equation is a mathematical concept. According to MPEP 2106.04(C) “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“
α
is a partial remodeling factor of soil strength,
α
=1 for an entire soil, and
α
=
1
s
t
for a completely-remolded soil,
s
t
is sensitivity of soil;
s
u
is shearing strength of soil without drainage; L is the height of the annular anchor; D is the outer diameter of the annular anchor;”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing -
see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the
claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP
2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to an anchor and soil near the anchor.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “
α
is a partial remodeling factor of soil strength,
α
=1 for an entire soil, and
α
=
1
s
t
for a completely-remolded soil,
s
t
is sensitivity of soil;
s
u
is shearing strength of soil without drainage; L is the height of the annular anchor; D is the outer diameter of the annular anchor” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as seen in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Lee (US 20230322334 A1) and American Society for Testing and Materials (Standard Test Method for Field Vane Shear Test in Cohesive Soil; 2017).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “
α
is a partial remodeling factor of soil strength,
α
=1 for an entire soil, and
α
=
1
s
t
for a completely-remolded soil,
s
t
is sensitivity of soil;
s
u
is shearing strength of soil without drainage; L is the height of the annular anchor; D is the outer diameter of the annular anchor” just ties the claim to generic data about an anchor.
Dependent claims 4-6, 11, and 12 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below:
The dependent claims are directed to further limit the formulas that are being used to find the anti-torque bearing strength of the anchor. Claim 11 is directed to wing plates which are additional elements, however, they amount to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception as seen in MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, dependent claims 4-6, 11, and 12 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20230322334 A1).
With respect to claim 1,
Lee teaches,
An annular anchor, comprising an anchor body (1) opened at its upper and lower ends, and a connection portion (2) arranged on the outer side wall of said anchor body (1) for connecting with parts to be moored. (Para. [0043] teaches “Anchoring system 10 generally includes an anchor or foundation 20,” (i.e. anchor 20 is viewed as the anchor body). Para. [0043] further teaches “an interior surface 24 extending between ends 21 and 23 and defining a cylindrical passage formed within the foundation 20.” Fig. 2 shows that the anchor body is open at its upper and lower ends. Para. [0044] teaches “The plurality of mooring lines 30 are coupled to the exterior surface 22 of foundation 20 at a plurality of cable connectors 32 spaced circumferentially along the exterior surface 22.” (i.e. cable connectors 32 are viewed as connection portion.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230322334 A1) as modified by American Society for Testing and Materials (Standard Test Method for Field Vane Shear Test in Cohesive Soil; 2017) and Abuhajar (Review of Available Methods for Evaluation of Soil Sensitivity for Seismic Design; 2010).
With respect to claim 3,
Lee does not explicitly teach,
A method for calculating antitorque bearing strength of the annular anchor, comprising a step of calculating antitorque bearing strength of the anchor body (1) of the annular anchor described in claim 1, wherein its calculation formula is as follows:
T
0
=
α
s
u
π
D
2
L
2
where,
α
is a partial remodeling factor of soil strength,
α
=1 for an entire soil, and
α
=
1
s
t
for a completely-remolded soil,
s
t
is sensitivity of soil;
s
u
is shearing strength of soil without drainage; L is the height of the annular anchor; D is the outer diameter of the annular anchor.
American Society for Testing and Materials teaches,
T= S*K where T is the turning moment required to shear the soil, s is shearing strength of the soil/clay without drainage as seen in section 5, and k is a constant depending on the shape of the vane/anchor as seen in section 6.1. In section 6.2 it shows that k of a cylindrically shaped object will include the π D^2 H/ 2 factor where D is the diameter and H is the height. It further includes other factors as the shape of their vane, as seen in figure 1, is different than the cylindrically shaped anchor in the instant application.
Claim 1 of the instant application appears to only consider the shear on a cylindrical side and does not consider the ends of the cylinder. Therefore, the surface area of just the sides of the cylinder is πDL where L is the height of the cylinder. It is well known that torque (T) is equal to r*F if the angle between the radius r and force F is perpendicular. It is also well-known that shear force (F) can be viewed as the shear stress (τ) multiplied by the cross-sectional area over which the force acts or F = τ *A. If r=D/2, A= πDL, τ=Su, the torque would be equivalent to the equation claimed as seen below:
T
=
D
2
*
F
,
F
=
S
u
π
D
L
→
T
=
s
u
π
D
2
L
2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with a step of calculating antitorque bearing strength of the anchor body (1) of the annular anchor described in claim 1, wherein its calculation formula is as follows:
T
0
=
α
s
u
π
D
2
L
2
where,
α
is a partial remodeling factor of soil strength,
α
=1 for an entire soil,
s
t
is sensitivity of soil;
s
u
is shearing strength of soil without drainage; L is the height of the annular anchor; D is the outer diameter of the annular anchor such as that of American Society for Testing and Materials.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Lee, because it would allow the user to know the load that can be applied to the anchor. Furthermore, it is important to know the maximum amount of torque that can be applied to the anchor because if it is pushed pass the calculated maximum the anchor will be destabilized as seen in Para. [0040] of Lee.
The combination of Lee and American Society for Testing and Materials does not explicitly teach,
α
=
1
s
t
for a completely-remolded soil,
Abuhajar teaches,
α
=
1
s
t
for a completely-remolded soil, (Introduction section teaches in equation 1 that the remolded shear strength would equal 1/ st when the undisturbed shear strength (Su) is equal to 1. (i.e the sASTM = α su, so sASTM = su when α = 1, and sASTM = sur when α = sur/su, which is just 1/st from Abuhajar)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and American Society for Testing and Materials with
α
=
1
s
t
for a completely-remolded soil, such as that of Abuhajar.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Lee and American Society for Testing and Materials, because according to the introduction section of Abuhajar “Soil sensitivity is an important measure of the loss of strength and structure in the soil body under the effect of static or seismic loading.” Therefore, it would be important to include soil sensitivity in torque calculations to increase accuracy.
With respect to claim 11,
Lee further teaches,
The method of claim 3, wherein at least one group of wing plates (3) is arranged on the outer side wall of said anchor body (1), and the multiple groups of wing plates (3) are spaced along the circumference of said anchor body (1). (Para. [0040] teaches “In this exemplary embodiment, each of the support members 40 of anchoring system 10 extend radially between a radially inner end 42 and a radially outer end 44 opposite inner end 42. Additionally, each of the support members 40 extends longitudinally (generally parallel with central axis 25) between a first or upper end 41 and a second or lower end 43 opposite the upper end 41. Support members 40 are generally plate-like or planar in this exemplary embodiment, but it may be understood that the shape and configuration of support members 40 may vary in other embodiments” where the support members are viewed as wing plates and Fig. 2 shows that they are spaced along the circumference of the anchor body.)
Prior Art Analysis
Claims 4-6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), however, none of the known prior art could be applied to the claims for the following reasons.
With respect to claim 4,
Lee teaches,
A system for anchoring an offshore vessel to a seabed. (Abstract) They further teach an open-ended anchor with wing plates that extend from the anchor body. (Para. [0040] and Fig.2) However, they do not explicitly teach calculating antitorque bearing strength of a wing plate.
American Society for Testing and Materials teaches,
A vane shear test method for calculating the shear strength of soil. (Introduction) Where they further find the torque required for a vane to shear the soil. (Section 6) However, they do not explicitly teach finding the torque due to a wing plate.
Wang teaches,
Finding the capacity envelope of 3D plate anchors in clay soil under combined 6 DOF loads through 3D finite element analysis. (Introduction) They further teach finding the torque of a side surface of a square plate through the integral in equation 1. (Section 3.1) However, they do not explicitly teach a
δ
N
=
1
factor as seen in the claim and they do no teach that the
N
p
is calculated as shown.
As seen above, none of the known prior art teaches and it would be non-obvious to combine the known prior art to teach:
“wherein the method further includes a step of calculating the antitorque bearing strength of a single wing plate (3), based on the following formula:
Δ
T
N
=
1
=
δ
N
=
1
∫
N
P
,
N
=
1
s
u
s
s
+
D
2
d
z
where, S is the width of the wing plate;
δ
N
=
1
is a scale factor, which is calculated as follows;
δ
N
=
1
=
0.166
log
s
D
+
1
N
P
,
N
=
1
is calculated as follows;
N
p
,
N
=
1
=
2
N
p
0
,
N
=
1
2
N
p
0
,
N
=
1
=
11.94
-
8.72
1
-
L
H
s
+
0.5
0.6
1.35
H
=
16.8
-
2.3
l
o
g
(
S
u
m
k
D
)
where,
S
u
m
is shearing strength of soil without drainage on the mud surface of a seabed; k is a gradient of soil strength; H is a gradient of normalized soil strength;
N
P
,
N
=
1
is a coefficient of horizontal bearing strength of the single wing plate when the plate and the soil are inseparable;
2
N
p
0
,
N
=
1
is a coefficient of horizontal bearing strength of the single wing plate when the plate and the soil are separable.”
Therefore, prior art cannot be applied to claim 4. Prior art cannot be applied to claims 5, 6, and 12 because they are dependent upon claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use
the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like
assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or
571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857