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 .
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 1, 4-11, 13, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Johansson (US 6595731 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Johansson discloses a system for connecting equipment to a mounting surface of a sea vessel, said system comprising: a skidding frame (Element 11) comprising a frame body, said frame body comprising an upper and a lower surface, a mounting footprint (Element 4) secured to said mounting surface (Element 3) and adapted to releasably engage said lower surface of said skidding frame, and one or more equipment modules (Element 2) for containing equipment, wherein said one or more equipment modules are adapted to be attached to said upper surface of said skidding frame, whereby said equipment modules are indirectly connected to said mounting surface via said skidding frame wherein said equipment modules are releasably attached to the upper surface of said skidding frame through securing means (twist locks are depicted), such that any movement of the skidding frame is eliminated (this is how standard twist locks function), wherein said mounting footprint comprises a number of anchoring points and said skidding frame comprises a number of anchoring points, wherein said number of anchoring points of said skidding frame comprise securing means, and wherein said securing means are twist locks. (twist locks posts for ISO containers are shown on element 11 in Fig 2. See Crosby Fig 2 in references cited for how twist locks are depicted.)
wherein said equipment modules are releasably attached to the upper surface of said skidding frame through securing means. wherein said mounting footprint comprises a number of anchoring points and said skidding frame comprises a number of engaging anchoring points. (Element 12), wherein and said anchoring points comprises said securing means. (twist locks) wherein said securing means are twist locks. (twist locks are shown but not separately labled.)
Regarding Claim 4, Johansson discloses a system according to claim 3, wherein multiple equipment modules are releasably attached to the upper surface of said skidding frame.
Regarding Claim 5, Johansson discloses a according to claim 4, wherein and said multiple equipment modules are releasably attached to each other using securing means. (Containers can be attached using twist locks in the configuration if Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 9, Johansson discloses a system according to claim 6, wherein said skidding frame comprises a frame body, having two or more parallel battens and two or more parallel frame beams, said battens being substantially perpendicular to said beams. (See Fig 2.)
Regarding Claim 10, Johansson discloses a system according to claim 9, wherein said frame body comprises a number of said anchoring points arranged at corners of said frame body. (twist locks are shown in Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 11, Johansson discloses a system according to claim 9, wherein said frame body comprises a number of anchoring points arranged on said battens (twist locks are arranged on the battens) and/or said frame beams between said corners of said frame body.
Regarding Claim 13, Johansson discloses a skidding frame according to claim 1 wherein said skidding frame comprises: a frame body, comprising two or more parallel battens and two or more parallel frame beams, said battens being substantially perpendicular to said beams, and a plurality of anchoring points.(See Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 14, Johansson discloses a skidding frame according to claim 13, wherein said frame body comprises a number of anchoring points arranged at corners of said frame body (at least two are shown) and a number of anchoring points arranged on said battens (at least two are shown) and/or said frame beams between said corners of said frame body.
11. Regarding Claim 20, Johansson discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein said sea vessel comprises a ship or submarine. (See abstract.)
Claims 17, 18 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Betjemann (US 3386600 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Betjemann discloses a method of sideways loading a skidding frame for supporting equipment modules, onto a mounting surface of a sea vessel, such as a ship or submarine or any other marine vessel, and securing it to a mounting footprint of said mounting surface, said method comprising the steps of: securing said skidding frame to elevation means, (Element 19) such as a lift, subsequently raising said elevation means to elevate said skidding frame to a level above said mounting surface (See Fig. 1.), once said skidding frame is at a level above said mounting surface, sideways conveying said skidding frame onto said mounting footprint (via crane 17 or 18), engaging securing means to secure said skidding frame to said mounting footprint of the mounting surface (C4, L43).
13. Regarding Claim 18, Betjemann discloses a method according to claim 17, wherein said elevation means comprises a lift. (Element 17, 18 satisfies the function of a lift which does not have a standard meaning in this context. Applicant can further define it with features from the drawings.)
13. Regarding Claim 19, Betjemann discloses a method according to claim 17, wherein said sea vessel comprises a ship or submarine. (See 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 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson (US 6595731 B1) in view of Betjemann (US 3386600 A).
Regarding Claim 12 Johansson discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein said skidding frame consists of a multiple of sections, but does not explicitly disclose said sections being smaller skidding frames that can be disconnected and connected.
Betjemann discloses wherein said skidding frame consists of a multiple of sections said sections being smaller skidding frames that can be disconnected and connected. (Fig. 3, Fig. 8) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to make the section that can be connected and disconnected which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Johansson is to make the skid frame more scalable and more portable.
Regarding Claim 15 Johansson discloses a skidding frame according to claim 13, wherein said skidding frame consists of a multiple of sections, being smaller skidding frames, that can be disconnected and connected. (See rejection of Claim 12 above)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 Jan 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that lateral locking between the footprint and the skidding frame is described explicitly in the spec. Examiner agrees. Examiner disagrees that this means that twist locks between the container and the skidding frame are excluded . Examiner’s position is that the disclosure includes the drawings which show twist locks, and this was supported by Crobsy Fig. 2. to show what a PHOSITA knows. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) Twist locks are ubiquitous and need not be explicitly identified in the spec to be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the depiction in the drawing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistlock for a description of how common they are; also Applicant’s spec discusses how standard they are. The Examiner was not persuaded the prior art’s drawings do not disclose twist locks to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
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 ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 24 May 2026
Prosecution Insights