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 with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 13-15 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should end with a single period instead of the current double period. 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 14, 15 and 17 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 14, the wording of “rotating the special collection coil to collect the pipe” in line 1 of the last paragraph is confusing. The special collection coil includes the longitudinal rod. According to the specification and drawings, the longitudinal rod does not rotate. It is unclear how, or even if, the entire special collection coil could rotate to collect the pipe without destroying the equipment or pipe. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “rotating the special collection coil to collect the pipe” to mean “rotating the transverse rod to collect the pipe”. Examiner notes that this same limitation is repeated in claim 15 and should be addressed similarly. Claims 15 and 17 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear whether “a motor” in line 3 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a motor” in claim 10 because of the double positive recitation of “a motor”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a motor” to mean “the motor”.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the collection wheel and the other elements of the equipment. The collection wheel is recited independently with no structural or functional relationship to any other part of the equipment, therefore the collection wheel could be related to an entirely different system or different vessel. It is unclear how the collection wheel relates to the other elements of the equipment. Claims 2-4, 7-10, 13-15 and 17 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
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, 8 and 9 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colyer (US 2003/0167997).
Regarding claim 1, Colyer discloses an equipment for collecting flexible pipes without the use of special vessels, the equipment comprising: at least one support vessel (e.g. 37, Fig. 1) with at least one vertical coil (e.g. 45, Fig. 1), the vertical coil being interconnected to a deck of the at least one support vessel and aligned longitudinally with the deck (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 0022); a remotely operated subsea vehicle (ROV) (e.g. 39, Fig. 1, paragraph 0022); a collection wheel (e.g. wheel must be present at top of 35, shown more clearly in Fig. 5); and a special collection coil (e.g. 11, Fig.’s 1 and 7) comprising: a longitudinal rod (e.g. shorter beam of 63 or diagonal bracing beam connected to 63, Fig. 7); a transverse rod (e.g. 77, Fig.’s 7 and 10); and one or more radial rods extending from an end of the transverse rod and embedded in a circular structure (e.g. flange 75 includes radial rods extending from transverse rod 77 and embedded in the outer circular structure near 85, Fig.’s 7 and 10); wherein the ROV and special collection coil are configured to be launched from the at least one support vessel near an end of a flexible pipe that rests on a seabed (e.g. Fig. 1, paragraphs 0021 and 0022). The recitation “for collecting flexible pipes without the use of special vessels” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone.
Regarding claim 8, Colyer further discloses that the one or more radial rods are configured to create traction on the longitudinal rod of the special collection coil, forcing the longitudinal rod to change a rotation direction dependent on a change of direction of a route of the flexible pipe (e.g. Fig. 7, wherein the radial rods create traction based on their structure against the force of the water/sand).
Regarding claim 9, Colyer further discloses that the one or more radial rods are configured to stabilize a position of the flexible pipe during and after collecting the flexible pipe (e.g. Fig. 7 wherein the radial rods stabilize the overall flange 75 and thereby stabilize the position of any pipe on the transverse rod).
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 2-4, 7, 10 and 13 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colyer (US 2003/0167997) alone.
Regarding claim 2, Colyer discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that hydraulic drives of motors are known in the art for driving coils (e.g. paragraph 0021) but Colyer does not explicitly disclose that a hydraulic drive of a motor is configured to drive the at least one vertical coil to collect the flexible pipe. 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 hydraulic drive of a motor to drive the vertical coil because such is a known power source in the art that would be appropriate for the environment and conditions of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, Colyer does not explicitly disclose that the hydraulic drive comprises a speed control. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include speed control with the hydraulic drive of Colyer for the expected benefit of allowing users to adjust the speed of the coil based on the conditions and requirements of the environment.
Regarding claim 4, Colyer discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose that the at least one support vessel comprises a capacity and a deck arrangement configured to accommodate one or more additional vertical coils. 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 vessel capable of accommodating an additional vertical coil for the expected benefit of allowing multiple groups of equipment to be used simultaneously and/or providing space for equipment repair on deck.
Regarding claim 7, Colyer discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose that the special collection coil comprises an internal diameter less than or equal to 2 meters. 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 internal diameter 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 internal diameter provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem.
Regarding claim 10, Colyer discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the special collection coil further comprises: an auxiliary winding mechanism (e.g. 95 and 119, Fig.’s 7, 9 and 12) comprising a shaft (e.g. 95, Fig.’s 7 and 9), the auxiliary winding mechanism coupled to the longitudinal rod of the special collection coil (e.g. Fig. 7 wherein the auxiliary winding mechanism is coupled to the longitudinal rod via 67) and configured to ensure proper positioning and winding of the flexible pipe on the special collection coil (e.g. paragraph 0039); a support system and mooring points disposed on the special collection coil (e.g. 65 and 91, Fig. 7); and a motor configured to wind the flexible pipe on to the special collection coil (e.g. 103, paragraph 0038). Colyer does not disclose that the motor is disposed on the transverse rod. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the motor of Colyer on the transverse rod because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Colyer further discloses that the auxiliary winding mechanism is configured to translate relative to the transverse rod according to an outer diameter of the flexible pipe (e.g. paragraph 0039).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art, individually or in combination, discloses or teaches a method comprising: providing equipment comprising: at least one support vessel with at least one vertical coil; a remotely operated subsea vehicle (ROV); and a special collection coil comprising: a longitudinal rod; a transverse rod; and one or more radial rods extending from an end of the transverse rod and embedded in a circular structure; interconnecting a flexible pipe that rests on a seabed to the special collection coil with the aid of the ROV; pulling the special collection coil, with the at least one support vessel, in a collection direction of the pipe; and rotating the special collection coil to collect the pipe as the at least one support vessel moves, with the rods stuck in sand.
Colyer (US 2003/0167997) discloses providing equipment comprising: at least one support vessel with at least one vertical coil; a remotely operated subsea vehicle (ROV); and a special collection coil comprising: a longitudinal rod; a transverse rod; and one or more radial rods extending from an end of the transverse rod and embedded in a circular structure (e.g. as described in the rejection above); interconnecting a flexible pipe that rests on a seabed to the special collection coil with the aid of the ROV (e.g. 19, Fig. 4, paragraph 0039); and rotating the special collection coil to collect the pipe (e.g. paragraph 0039). Colyer does not disclose collecting the pipe as the at least one support vessel moves and pulls the special collection coil and the rods are stuck in sand. There is no teaching to rotate a special collection coil to collect pipe as at least one support vessel moves, with the rods stuck in sand. Typically collection coils are designed to avoid being stuck in sand.
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
Prosecution Insights