DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits of application 18263252.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnig US 20110107953.
Claim 1 and 9-10, Jahnig discloses a mooring system for mooring a floating platform [7] having a plurality of stabilizing arms [16/17/18] with floats [12/13/14], the mooring system comprising an anchoring system containing a plurality of anchors [9/10/11] and anchoring cables [26/27/28] for anchoring the mooring system in deep sea, in the center part of the mooring system comprises a mooring unit [1] containing a plurality of mooring elements [20/21/22] and positioning wires [29-34], See [0013-0019, 0028] and figs. 1-2 He does not disclose explicitly where each mooring element is connected to an adjacent mooring element with a positioning wire and to an anchor. However, he does disclose each mooring element is connected to an anchor, and the anchor is connected to a mooring element adjacent to the first one. Due to this feature increased rigidness of the mooring unit is obtained. Thus, it 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 to use said construction for increased stiffness of the mooring structure.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahnig et al, further in view of Copple US 20150298772.
Claim 2, Jahnig discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1 he does not disclose each mooring element comprises an elongated floating container having a common cavity for air and ballast water. Copple discloses an elongated floating container [102]mas a ballast tank [0031] and fig. 1, thus it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the above configuration to stabilize and level the platform.
Claim 3-4, 11-13, Jahnig discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1 he does not disclose each mooring element comprises a mid- part with a cylindrical cross- section or funnel shaped upper part and cylindric lower part. Copple discloses this in fig. 1 [102]. Thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the above configuration to provide less resistance to currents.
Claim 5 and 14-17, Jahnig discloses the mooring system comprises three mooring elements [20/21/22] and the anchor system has three anchors [9/10/11] see fig. 1.
Claim 7, Jahnig discloses wherein three mooring elements form a triangular pattern [fig. 2] with a mooring element in each corner, each mooring element being positioned by a positioning wire to the adjacent mooring elements and to an anchor. It 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 to use said configuration as shown in fig. 2 for stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615