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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Lanan fails to disclose the claimed step of plastic deformation of the suspended portion of the pipeline “while maintaining the suspended portion of the pipeline between the seabed and the vessel” because Lanan teaches to deform the pipe directly on the vessel is noted but is not considered persuasive because the plastic deformation of Lanan occurs on the extension that projects from the vessel as shown in Fig. 2A similar to the plastic deformation of the instant application that occurs on the extension that projects from the vessel as recited in claim 32 and shown in Fig. 1C.
Applicant’s argument that the step of deformation of Hickey’s pipe occurs on the vessel and Hickey fails to disclose that the tensioners are configured to retrieve the plastically deformed portions of the pipeline, the plastically deformed portions are formed in a sagbend or overbend section, and the straightening unit is arranged between the stern of the vessel and the tensioner is noted but is not considered persuasive because a modified interpretation of Hickey does include each of these newly added limitations as described below. Examiner notes that the newly added limitations are primarily functional related to the capabilities of the tensioners and straightening unit. Although these functions are not explicitly disclosed by Hickey, the tensioners and straightening unit of Hickey are capable of satisfying these functional limitations.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 2, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amendment filed October 2, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “the pipeline 10 plastically deforms in the sagbend section” and “the plastic deformation in the overbend is a result of the relatively low stinger radius of curvature and in the sagbend is a result of the relatively low tension applied to the pipeline” in the first paragraph on page 13. The original specification disclosed that the pipeline plastically deforms at or near the overbend section but there is no disclosure regarding plastic deformation in the sagbend section. The original specification also provided an exemplary system including a support member with a radius of curvature of 30m to 100m, however the specification did not provide any information regarding whether this range is considered low, average, or high. The original specification also did not disclose any relationship between the plastic deformation in the overbend and the radius of curvature of the support member, or the plastic deformation in the sagbend and the low tension applied to the pipeline. The only relationship disclosed in the original specification is the relationship between the plastic deformation in the overbend and the low tension applied to the pipeline. This relationship, however, is not the same as the newly amended subject matter. Thus, the added material is not supported by the original disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “suspended” should be inserted before “portion” in line 2 for consistency with amended claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 36, 38, 43, 45, 46, 51-53 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter which was not described in the specification is that the plurality of plastically deformed potions includes a sagbend section and an overbend section as recited in amended claim 1 (and therefore all depending claims), that the one or more plastically deformed portions are formed in at least one of a sagbend section or an overbend section as recited in amended claim 45 (and therefore all depending claims), and that the straightening unit is “to strengthen the one or more plastically deformed portions” in amended claim 45 (and therefore all depending claims). The original application disclosed that the pipeline plastically deforms at or near the overbend section but does not mention plastic deformation at the sagbend. Instead, the original application simply states that a sagbend is formed. Further, the original application did not mention any strengthening of the pipeline. Thus, it is not clear that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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 18, 30, 32, 36, 38, 51-53 and 59 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.
Regarding claim 18, the wording of “the step of suspending at least a portion of the pipeline includes forming of an overbend and a sag bend while the suspended portion of the pipeline is between the seabed and the vessel” in lines 1-3 is confusing. It is unclear whether “an overbend and a sag bend” are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a sagbend section and an overbend section” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “sagbend” and “overbend”. It is also unclear how the step of suspending a portion of the pipeline can include any step while the suspended portion of the pipeline is between the seabed and the vessel. If the step occurs “while” the suspended portion is between the seabed and the vessel, then the suspended portion must already be formed and therefore the step cannot be part of “the step of suspending”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the step of suspending at least a portion of the pipeline includes forming of an overbend and a sag bend while the suspended portion of the pipeline is between the seabed and the vessel” to mean “the step of plastically deforming the suspended portion of the pipeline includes forming of the overbend section and the sagbend section while the suspended portion of the pipeline is between the seabed and the vessel”.
Regarding claim 30, the wording of “the plastically deformed portion has a radius of curvature of about 30m, 50m, 70m, 90m or 110m, and wherein the plastically deformed portion is formed at or near an overbend in the pipeline” in lines 1-3 is confusing. It is unclear which plastically deformed portion is meant by “the plastically deformed portion” because a plurality of plastically deformed portions are previously recited. It is also unclear whether “an overbend” is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “an overbend” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “an overbend”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the plastically deformed portion has a radius of curvature of about 30m, 50m, 70m, 90m or 110m, and wherein the plastically deformed portion is formed at or near an overbend in the pipeline” to mean “the overbend section of the plastically deformed portions has a radius of curvature of about 30m, 50m, 70m, 90m or 110m”.
Regarding claim 32, it is unclear which plastically deformed portion is meant by “the plastically deformed portion” in lines 1-2, lines 2-3, and line 3 because a plurality of plastically deformed portions are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the plastically deformed portion” to mean “the overbend section of the plastically deformed portions”.
Regarding claim 36, it is unclear which plastically deformed portion is meant by “the plastically deformed portion” in line 2, lines 2-3, line 4, and line 7 because a plurality of plastically deformed portions are previously recited. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the plastically deformed portion” to mean “the plastically deformed portions”. Claim 38 is rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 51, it is unclear whether “a support member” in lines 1-2 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a support member” in claim 45 because of the double positive recitation of “a support member”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a support member” to mean “the support member”. Claims 52 and 53 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 53, it is unclear whether “a stern” in line 2 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a stern” in claim 45 because of the double positive recitation of “a stern”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a stern” to mean “the stern”.
Regarding claim 59, the wording of “the one or more plastically deformed portions of the suspended portion of the pipeline are formed in both a sagbend section and an overbend section of the suspended portion of the pipeline” in lines 1-3 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the one or more plastically deformed portions”. Examiner notes that a plurality of plastically deformed portions are previously recited, but not one or more plastically deformed portions. It is unclear whether “a sagbend section and an overbend section” are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a sagbend section and an overbend section” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “a sagbend section and an overbend section”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the one or more plastically deformed portions of the suspended portion of the pipeline are formed in both a sagbend section and an overbend section of the suspended portion of the pipeline” to mean “the plurality of plastically deformed portions of the suspended portion of the pipeline are formed in both the sagbend section and the overbend section of the suspended portion of the pipeline”.
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 18 and 59 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. All of the limitations of claim 18 and claim 59 are previously recited in claim 1, therefore claims 18 and 59 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. 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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 45, 46 and 51-53 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hickey et al (US 6,328,502).
Regarding claim 45, Hickey discloses a system for retrieving a pipeline (e.g. 215, Fig. 1) from a seabed (e.g. 2000, Fig. 1) within a body of water (e.g. Fig. 1, wherein the system is capable of retrieving a pipeline from a seabed within a body of water), the system comprising: a vessel capable of being supported by the body of water (e.g. 100, Fig. 1), the vessel including a support member extending from a stern of the vessel (e.g. 800, Fig. 1), the vessel comprising: one or more tensioners capable of releasably holding or clamping at least one end of the pipeline (e.g. rightmost 500, Fig. 1), the one or more tensioners are configured to apply a first longitudinal tension to the pipeline to suspend at least a portion of the pipeline in the body of water between the seabed and the vessel thereby producing a suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. Fig. 1, wherein supporting the suspended pipeline with the tensioner creates a first longitudinal tension on the pipeline), the one or more tensioners are configured to apply a second longitudinal tension to the suspended portion of the pipeline that is between the seabed and the vessel to form one or more plastically deformed portions of the suspended portion of the pipeline, wherein the one or more plastically deformed portions are formed in at least one of a sagbend section or an overbend section of the suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. Fig. 1, wherein supporting the suspended pipeline with the tensioner creates a second longitudinal tension on the pipeline when the vessel thrusts forward and/or when the pipeline is pulled from the seabed), and wherein the one or more tensioners are configured to retrieve the one or more plastically deformed portions of the suspended portion of the pipeline onto the vessel (e.g. Fig. 1, wherein the tensioner is capable of rotating in either direction such that the pipeline is capable of being retrieved); and a straightening unit to strengthen the one or more plastically deformed portions to form a straightened pipeline (e.g. leftmost 500, Fig. 1, wherein the structure of the leftmost 500 functions to straighten the pipeline), the straightening unit comprising at least one pair of rollers that are adjusted to have a lateral gap that is smaller than an outer diameter of the plastically deformed portion of the pipeline (e.g. 510, Fig. 16, col. 12, lines 12-29); wherein the straightening unit is arranged between the stern of the vessel and the one or more tensioners (e.g. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 46, Hickey further discloses that the straightening unit further includes one or more pressing members (e.g. 540, Fig. 16, col. 12, lines 12-29).
Regarding claim 51, Hickey further discloses a support member for controlling plastic deformation of the suspended portion of the pipeline, wherein the support member is a stinger, boom, or frame (e.g. stinger 800, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 52, Hickey further discloses that the support member is arranged in-line with the straightening unit and the one or more tensioners (e.g. Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 53, Hickey further discloses that the support member is fitted or installed to a deck of the vessel and extends rearward from a stern of the vessel (e.g. Fig. 1), and wherein the support member is oriented to form a departure angle of about 35, 40, 42, 44 or 45° relative to the deck of the vessel (e.g. about 45°, Fig. 1).
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 1, 5, 13, 14, 18, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32 and 59 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaini et al (US 2014/0072370) in view of Lanan (US 5,011,333).
Regarding claim 1, Scaini discloses a method for retrieving a pipeline (e.g. 3) from a seabed (e.g. 33) in a body of water to a vessel (e.g. 1, Fig. 14, claim 12, paragraph 0023), the method comprising: (a) suspending at least a portion of the pipeline between the seabed and the vessel to produce a suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. similar to Fig. 14, paragraph 0023 wherein the pipeline will be suspended during raising from the seabed to the vessel); (b) while maintaining the suspended portion of the pipeline between the seabed and the vessel, deforming the suspended portion of the pipeline to form a plurality of deformed portions of the suspended portion of the pipeline, the plurality of deformed portions includes a sagbend section and an overbend section of the suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. similar to Fig. 14, paragraph 0023); and(c) retrieving the deformed portions onto the vessel (e.g. paragraphs 0023 and 0046 wherein the pipeline starts on the vessel and is recovered onto the vessel). Scaini does not explicitly disclose that the deforming is plastically deforming to form plastically deformed portions. Lanan teaches a method for retrieving a pipeline (e.g. P) from a seabed (e.g. 7) in a body of water to a vessel (e.g. 1, col. 8, lines 62-66), the method comprising: (a) suspending at least a portion of the pipeline between the seabed and the vessel to produce a suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. Fig. 9, similar to Fig. 1); (b) while maintaining the suspended portion of the pipeline between the seabed and the vessel, plastically deforming the suspended portion of the pipeline to form a plurality of plastically deformed portions of the suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. Fig. 9, similar to Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 43-48, wherein the deformed section is considered a plurality of deformed portions); and (c) retrieving the plastically deformed portion onto the vessel (e.g. col. 9, lines 31-35). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to induce plastic deformation as taught by Lanan in the pipeline of Scaini because such is a known method step in the art that would provide the expected benefit of greatly diminishing the radius of the curvature of the overbending structure and permitting the end of the overbending structure to be positioned closely adjacent to the end of the vessel (e.g. col. 4, lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the pipeline includes a fluid (e.g. Scaini, paragraph 0023 wherein the pipelines are typically purged of water and therefore include the fluid air) but does not explicitly disclose that the pipeline is sealed at one or both ends. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to seal both ends of the pipeline of Scaini and Lanan for the expected benefit of keeping water out of the pipeline as desired to minimize the weight of the pipeline (e.g. Scaini, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the step of suspending at least a portion of the pipeline includes applying a first longitudinal tension to the pipeline (e.g. Scaini, paragraph 0023 wherein raising the pipeline with the tensioning apparatus creates a first longitudinal tension).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the first longitudinal tension is provided by the vessel connected to the pipeline (e.g. Scaini, tensioning apparatus is on the vessel) but the combination of Scaini and Lanan does not explicitly disclose that the first longitudinal tension is up to 150 effective tension (Te). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the tension limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this tension provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the step of suspending at least a portion of the pipeline includes forming of an overbend and a sag bend while the suspended portion of the pipeline is between the seabed and the vessel (e.g. Scaini, S-laying, similar to Fig. 14, paragraphs 0023 and 0013).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the step of plastically deforming the portion of the pipeline includes applying a second longitudinal tension to the pipeline while the suspended portion of the pipeline is between the seabed and the vessel (e.g. Scaini, paragraph 0023 wherein raising the pipeline with the winch creates a second longitudinal tension).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the second longitudinal tension is sufficient to allow plastic deformation of the pipeline (e.g. as explained above) but does not explicitly disclose that the second longitudinal tension is up to 150 Te and results in no more than 7.5% ovality and no more than 1% axial strain. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the tension limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this tension provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the second longitudinal tension is provided by the vessel connected to one end of the pipeline (e.g. Scaini, winch is on vessel, paragraph 0023), and the vessel provides the second longitudinal tension by applying a second thrust or at least partially by a tensioner (e.g. Scaini, tensioning apparatus is on the vessel, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the plastically deformed portion is formed at or near an overbend in the pipeline (e.g. Scaini, similar to Fig. 1) but does not explicitly disclose that the plastically deformed portion has a radius of curvature of about 30m, 50m, 70m, 90m or 110m. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the radius of curvature limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this radius of curvature provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the plastically deformed portion is formed at or near an extension that projects from the vessel (e.g. Scaini, stinger shown but not labeled in Fig. 1), and the plastically deformed portion is retrieved via one or more tensioners or a combination of a brake, a clamp, and a winch (e.g. Scaini, tensioners, paragraph 0023). The combination of Scaini and Lanan does not explicitly disclose that the plastically deformed portion has a length of up to 250m. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the length limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Finally, Applicant has not disclosed that this length provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 59, the combination of Scaini and Lanan further discloses that the one or more plastically deformed portions of the suspended portion of the pipeline are formed in both a sagbend section and an overbend section of the suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. Scaini, similar to Fig. 14, paragraph 0023, as explained above).
Claim 16 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaini et al (US 2014/0072370) in view of Lanan (US 5,011,333) as applied to claims 14 and 23 above, and further in view of Maidla et al (US 2016/0123500).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Scaini and Lanan discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the first longitudinal tension is provided at least partially by a tensioner or a combination of a brake, a clamp, and a winch (e.g. Scaini, tensioning apparatus, paragraph 0023) but the combination of Scaini and Lanan does not disclose that the vessel provides the first longitudinal tension by applying a first thrust. Maidla teaches a method for moving a pipeline (e.g. P) between a seabed in a body of water and a vessel (e.g. Fig. 1), the method comprising: (a) suspending at least a portion of the pipeline between the seabed and the vessel to produce a suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. Fig. 1); and (b) deforming the suspended portion of the pipeline to form a plurality of deformed portions of the suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. Fig. 1); wherein the step of suspending at least a portion of the pipeline includes applying a first longitudinal tension to the pipeline (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0012); the first longitudinal tension is provided by the vessel connected to the pipeline (e.g. paragraph 0012); the vessel provides the first longitudinal tension by applying a first thrust (e.g. paragraph 0012), and wherein the first longitudinal tension is provided at least partially by a tensioner or a combination of a brake, a clamp, and a winch (e.g. tensioner assembly, paragraph 0012). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the tension on the pipeline of the combination of Scaini and Lanan by applying a first thrust as taught by Maidla because such is a known method step of controlling tension and sag bend in the pipeline (e.g. Maidla, paragraph 0012).
Claims 36 and 38 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaini et al (US 2014/0072370) in view of Lanan (US 5,011,333) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hawkins et al (US 2015/0043975).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Scaini and Lanan discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not disclose straightening the plastically deformed portion after retrieving the plastically deformed portion to the vessel. Hawkins teaches a method for retrieving a pipeline (e.g. 40) from a seabed (e.g. 42) in a body of water to a vessel (e.g. 60, claim 6), the method comprising: suspending at least a portion of the pipeline between the seabed and the vessel to produce a suspended portion of the pipeline (e.g. Fig. 2C, claim 1); retrieving the portion onto the vessel (e.g. claim 6); and straightening the portion after retrieving the portion to the vessel; wherein the step of straightening includes passing the portion through a straightening unit to effectuate the straightening, and the straightening unit includes a pair of driven rollers that are adjusted to have a lateral gap that is smaller than an outer diameter of the deformed portion of the pipeline (e.g. 94/96, Fig. 4B, paragraph 0043). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a straightening mechanism as taught by Hawkins to straighten and pipeline of the combination of Scaini and Lanan because such is a known element in the art that would provide the expected benefit of moving the pipeline to a desired location for processing (e.g. Hawkins, paragraph 0041). Examiner notes that Scaini further discloses hydraulically driven elements (e.g. paragraph 0054) therefore it also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the pair of rollers hydraulically because such is a known system for moving elements that is already present on the vessel.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Scaini, Lanan and Hawkins does not disclose cutting the pipeline. Hawkins further teaches cutting the pipeline into a plurality of sections after the pipeline was retrieved to the vessel (e.g. paragraph 0043). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to cut the pipeline of the combination of Scaini, Lanan and Hawkins into sections as taught by Hawkins for the expected benefit of facilitating storage and transport (e.g. Hawkins, paragraph 0006).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678