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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an arrangement for releasably locking” (synonymous with “means for locking”) in claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, 17, 19-23, 26-29.
“lock
“A rotation arrangement for rotating” in Claims 1-4, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26-27 (note Claim 7 is excluded.)
“moveable lock members” Claim 8
“Biasing members” Claim 8
“latch mechanism” Claim 13
“bearing means” Claim 21
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 8-10, 1313, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27 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.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 21 phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim limitations
“an arrangement for releasably locking” (synonymous with “means for locking”) in claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, 17, 19-23, 26-29.
“lock
“moveable lock members” Claim 8
“latch mechanism” Claim 13
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The spec does not clearly link the structures with their definitions where the definitions are capable of fulfilling the function. (Applicant may use the drawings to support description under 112a, but the specification needs to define the corresponding structure for the nonces described functionally in the claims.) Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticiapted by Jackson (WO 2018/002605 Al, provided by Applicant as GB 2551716.)
Regarding Claim 1, Jackson discloses a mooring, marine, subsea, underwater or offshore connector comprising: a first portion (Element 1, Fig. 1.); a second portion (Element 2, Fig. 2.); and a rotation arrangement for rotating the first portion relative to the second portion when the first portion is inserted into and/or withdrawn from the second portion; (the arrangement shown allows at least some rotation when inserted) and an arrangement for releasably locking the first portion and the second portion, wherein the arrangement comprises at least one movable lock or stopper member (Element 4) which is biased towards a first position (Via Element 18).
Regarding Claim 2, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the first portion comprises a male portion; and/or the second portion comprises a female portion; and/or the first portion is receivable within the second portion. (See Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 7, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the rotation arrangement comprises at least one or one cam follower, pin or protrusion (Element 4 protrudes from the second portion) on one of the first portion or the second portion and a guide (Element 17, first portion) or cam track on the other of the second portion or the first portion.
Regarding Claim 8, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein there is provided: at least one opposing or facing pair of movable lock members (Element 4); and/or at least one pair of biasing members or spring members, and/or a first end of the/each biasing member is connected to a first movable lock member, and a second end of the/each biasing member is connected to a second movable lock member, and/or a first end of the first movable lock member is connected to a first end of a (first) biasing member, and/or a first end of the second movable lock member is connected to a second end of the (first) biasing member.
Regarding Claim 9, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the first portion has at least one recess or notch (Element 17) adapted to receive the/one of the movable lock member(s), such as in a lock(ed) position, such as a/the third position, and the first portion has at least one opposing pair of recesses or notches (other Element 17) adapted to lock or engage with a/the pair of opposing or facing movable lock members, such as when in a/the respective third positions.
Regarding Claim 10, Jackson discloses the connector connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the first portion provides a mooring line connection arrangement (Element 13); and/or the first portion has a first end adapted for insertion into the second portion; and/or the first portion has a second end adapted for connection to a mooring line; and/or the first portion has an arrangement for allowing movement of the first portion relative to a mooring line, the movement allowing arrangement being provided at or adjacent an end/the second end of the first portion and/or being adapt to allow relative movement in two perpendicular axes; and/or the connector comprises a mooring line or leg connector for use with a mooring line or leg extending up from a floor of a body of water, such as a sea floor, to connect a floating structure to be moored to the floor of the body of water; and/or connection and disconnection of the connector or the line is done by pulling in and/or out (on) the first portion, which comprises an elongate body.
Regarding Claim 13, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one movable lock member comprises at least part of a latch mechanism (Element 4 forms a latch) for connecting or fixing the line to the structure to be moored and/or there is provided an arrangement for releasably connecting the first and second portions, wherein optionally the at least one movable member comprises at least part of the releasable connection arrangement, and optionally further wherein the releasable connection arrangement comprises at least part of a/the through-passage in the second portion.
Regarding Claim 15, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the first portion comprises means for connecting or connection to one or more lines, such as mooring lines, allowing rotational movement around or about at least one transverse axis of the first portion with respect to the line; and/or wherein optionally the second portion comprises means for connecting or connection to a (subsea) structure allowing rotational movement around or about a transverse axis of the second portion with respect to the (subsea) structure; and/or wherein optionally the transverse axis of the first portion is substantially perpendicular to the transverse axis of the second portion. (See Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 17, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: a/the arrangement for connecting the first portion to a line comprises one or more first bearing means, wherein the one or more first bearing means comprises a clevis arrangement and/or a/the arrangement for connecting the second portion to a structure comprises one or more second bearing means, wherein optionally the one or more second bearing means (Element 3) comprises one or more protrusions or trunnions, wherein optionally further the one or more protrusions or trunnions provide the transverse axis of the second portion.
Regarding Claim 19, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: a/the transverse axis of the second portion is substantially horizontal; (This is always true of cylindrical objects. See Fig 1.) and/or a/the transverse axis of the first portion is substantially orthogonal or perpendicular to the transverse axis of the second portion, in use, when the first and second portions are connected; and/or a/the through-passage of the second portion is capable of receiving a work-line or wire.
Regarding Claim 20, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the connector comprises the first portion, the second portion, and a/the arrangement for connecting the first and second portions, wherein the arrangement for connecting comprises at least part of a/the through-passage in the second portion, the through-passage being capable of receiving a work-line or wire, the first portion comprising an arrangement for releasably connecting to the work-line or wire , the line connecting arrangement comprising first and second line connection means, the first line connection means being configured for releasably engaging with the second line connection means, and the engagement between the first and second line connection means being caused by tension created between the work line or wire and the first portion of the connector. (Element 11, Element 15)
Regarding Claim 23, Jackson discloses the marine, floating, buoyant, subsea, underwater or offshore structure, apparatus, equipment or vessel when moored by one or more lines, wherein at least one of the lines is connected to the structure, or marine, floating, buoyant, subsea, underwater or offshore structure, apparatus, equipment or vessel, by a connector according to claim 1, and optionally wherein the structure, apparatus, equipment or vessel comprises: a submerged turret loading, a submerged turret production buoy, a (floating/production) platform or SPAR, or (offshore) renewable energy generator or wind turbine. (C1, L9)
Regarding Claim 26, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the at least one movable lock member is movable from a/the first position to a/the second position by insertion of the first portion into the second portion; and/or the at least one movable member is movable from a/the second position to a/the third position be further insertion of the first portion into the second portion; and/or the at least one movable lock member is movable from a/the third position to a/the second position by yet further insertion of the first portion into the second portion; and/or the at least one movable member is movable from a/the second position to a/the first position by removal of the first member from the second member. (See Fig. 1, See Fig. 6. The connector of Jackson is capable of this function because the outermost ball moves through three grooves. See MPEP 2114.)
Regarding Claim 27, Jackson discloses the connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the at least one movable lock member is movable from a/the first position to a/the second position by insertion of the first portion into the second portion (See Fig. 1, See Fig. 6.); and the at least one movable member is movable from a/the second position to a/the third position be further insertion of the first portion into the second portion; and/or the at least one movable lock member is movable from a/the third position to a/the second position by a release member, the release member optionally being moved/controlled by a release line, e.g., by pulling/tensioning the release line; and/or the at least one movable member is movable from the a/second position to a/the first position by a/the at least one biasing member and/or a/the release member, e.g., by releasing/de-tensioning the release line thereby allowing the at least one biasing member to act on the at least one movable lock member; and/or the first portion is removable from the second portion by yet further insertion of the first portion into the second portion followed by removal of the first portion from the second portion.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jackson (GB 2569359 A)
Regarding Claim 1, Jackson discloses a mooring, marine, subsea, underwater or offshore connector comprising: a first portion (Element 2); a second portion (Element 3); and a rotation arrangement for rotating the first portion relative to the second portion when the first portion is inserted into and/or withdrawn from the second portion; (the arrangement shown allows at least some rotation when inserted) and an arrangement for releasably locking the first portion and the second portion , wherein the releasable lock arrangement comprises at least one movable lock or stopper member (Element 17) which is biased towards a first position.
Regarding Claim 3, Jackson discloses a connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the second portion has a through-bore (See Fig. 7.), the through-bore having first portion entry and exit ends; the/each at least one movable lock member is provided on the second portion, such as at or adjacent a/the exit end of the through-bore (It is adjacent the exit, see Fig 9.), and the/each at least one movable lock member is connected, such as movably (Element 17) and/or hingeably connected, to the second portion .
Regarding Claim 4, Jackson discloses a connector as claimed in claim 1, wherein when in the first position the at least one movable lock member overlaps (with) a/the through-bore of the second portion when viewed along an axis of the through-bore (See Fig. 9), and/or the at least one movable lock member is resiliently movable from the first position to a second position and to a third position by insertion of the first portion into the second portion; and/or the or each lock/stopper member is resiliently movable from the third position to the second position and to the first position by withdrawal of the first portion from the second portion; and/or the first position and the third position are the same; and/or the first position is a radially proximal position, the second position is a radially distal position, and the third position is a radially proximal position relative to an axis of a/the through-bore of the second portion; and/or the or each lock/stopper member is movable against the action of a biasing arrangement by insertion of the first portion into the second portion and/or by removal of the first portion from the second portion; and/or the releasable lock arrangement is adapted to take or transmit tension between a line, such as a mooring line, and a structure through the connector.
25. Regarding Claim 21, Jackson discloses a connector as claimed in claim 1, comprising a/the first portion comprising a male part (Element 2), a/the second portion comprising a female part (Element 3), and a/the arrangement or means for connecting the first and second portions, wherein the arrangement for connecting comprises at least part of a/the through-passage in the second portion, the first portion comprises means for connecting the first portion to one or more (mooring) line(s) (Element 10), the means for connecting the first portion to one or more line(s) being configured to allow rotational movement of the first portion with respect to one or more line(s) about a transverse axis (B, C) of the first portion, the second portion comprises a/the arrangement or means for connecting the second portion to a structure (Element 5), such as an underwater structure or submersible or semi-submersible structure, wherein the arrangement or means for connecting the second portion to a structure are configured to allow rotational movement of the second portion with respect to an structure about a transverse axis (D) of the second portion, the means for connecting the second portion to a structure comprising bearing means (Element 4, Fig. 15) which provide rotational movement about the transverse axis of the second portion with respect to the structure, and wherein the transverse axis of the first portion is substantially perpendicular to the transverse axis of the second portion when the first and second portions are connected. (It is capable of being at this angle of rotation. See MPEP 2114.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112b for lack of Corresponding Structure under 112f
The term “lock member” is a nonce. It’s defined in paragrahs 42 and 44 of the pg pub as a “latch mechanism”, another nonce, or as part of the “releasable connection arrangement”, which recursively defines itself. These are not definitions readily identifiable by a person of ordinary skill in the art. They are nonce stand-ins that do not refer to any clear structure. Applicant’s assertion “the claimed structure that performs the locking function is explicitly claimed” by explicitly claiming another a nonce. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349, 115 USPQ2d at 1111” See MPEP 2181. The Examiner maintains the 112b.
The rotation arrangement is defined in Claim 7, so claim 7 is not interpreted under 112f. In all other claims it remains undefined. The Examiner maintains the 112b.
Examiner agrees that “biasing member” is defined in the spec; the 112b is withdrawn.
The additional function of the latch mechanism is a function, as in a nonce means defined only by its function. It is not a defined structure. The Examiner maintains the 112b.
102 Rejection
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that “Claim 1 positively requires a defined rotation arrangement, wherein that relative rotation occurs as a consequence of insertion and/or withdrawal, i.e., axial movement inherently induces rotational movement.” Applicant did not attempt any claim interpretation or create a nexus to the particular claim limitations. As best understood by Examiner, Applicant is interpreting “when” to have the broadest reasonable interpretation as “as a consequence of, induces”. Examiner disagrees. The plain meaning of when, according to the Oxford English Dictionary includes “2.At the (or a) time at which; on the (or an) occasion on which. Also with only the predicate expressed, e.g. when a girl ‘when she (I, etc.) was a girl’, when cold ‘when it is cold’.
This use can be viewed as a nominal relative (cf. what pron. A.III.i), or as correlative to then (implied and sometimes expressed).” Examiner’s position is that cause or consequence is not required by the word “when,” just timing. Applicant’s argument that Jackson “...may merely allow relative rotation if torque is applied while…” can also be restated as “…may merely allow relative rotation when torque is applied while...” Applicant used bold and underlining and italics on “Jackson may enable some degree of rotational freedom but does not generate rotation” but literally does not have “generate” in the original claims, amended claims nor specification. The Examiner was not persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language requires generation of rotation, but rather that a timing when rotation is functionally possible. (See MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mooring connectors that generate rotation when inserted are disclosed by Taylor (US 20150020725 A1) and Benjamin (WO 2016180866 A1).
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 28 August 2028
Prosecution Insights