DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A preliminary amendment was filed by applicant on 06/30/2023.
Claims 1-20 are amended.
The amended Abstract and Specification are accepted, except as otherwise noted.
5. Claims 1-20 are remaining in the application.
Drawings
6. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “slits” must be shown (it is suggested that the feature be clearly identified with an accompanying drawing reference character that corresponds to the feature as described in the Specification) or the feature canceled from the claim(s). Appropriate correction is required. The Specification discloses that the valve structure 62 is provided with slits configured to obstruct water from passing in one direction and letting water pass in the other direction, but does not describe or point out these slits in the drawing figures, nor does it describe explicitly how the slits work or operate to obstruct water from passing in one direction and allow water to pass in the other direction.
7. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above feature(s) consistent with the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
9. In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
10. The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The Specification does not include a drawing reference character for the feature indicated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Office Action.
The Specification discloses that the valve structure 62 is provided with slits configured to obstruct water from passing in one direction and letting water pass in the other direction, but does not describe explicitly how the slits work or operate to obstruct water from passing in one direction and allow water to pass in the other direction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention.
13. It is unclear how the claimed “valve structure configuration is provided by slits configured to obstruct water from passing in one direction and essentially letting water pass in the other direction” in light of the Specification; The Specification discloses that the valve structure 62 is provided with slits configured to obstruct water from passing in one direction and letting water pass in the other direction, but does not describe explicitly how the slits work or operate to obstruct water from passing in one direction and allow water to pass in the other direction.
14. The claimed features “each dampening device”, “the opposite direction”, “the other direction”, “the water”, “the marine structure”, “the extension”, “the wire”, “the wire control arrangement”, “the respective winch”, “the winch” and “said motion information” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims where recited.
15. The phrase “essentially without” does not make clear if that which follows the phrase is required with certainty or is always necessary.
16. The phrase “according to any of claim 1” does not make clear that all of claim 1 applies.
17. It is unclear how each dampening device comprises a support structure extending in a parabolic surface in light of the Specification as disclosed, especially since a parabolic shape is a U-shaped curve defined by the property that every point on the curve is equidistant from a fixed point (the focus) and a fixed straight line (the directrix); it does not appear that such a surface is described in the Specification.
18. Claim 20 specifies a process of use of the system of claim 1 but has not process steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
20. As best understood by the examiner, claims 1, 2, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 3986471 A (Haselton), cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses a system for motion damping of a floating marine structure (semi-submersible) [10], the system comprising:
- at least one dampening device [26] (damper plate) configured to dampen a movement in one direction and allowing a movement in the opposite direction essentially without damping interaction, and
- a suspension arrangement comprising a respective wire (can be a cable) [28] configured to suspend the at least one dampening device [26] hanging at a suspended depth in the water from the marine structure and with the at least one dampening device oriented so that a dampening force induced by the least one dampening device is subjected in the extension of the wire [28], wherein each dampening device [26] is a passive damping device comprising a valve structure [36] configured to dampen a movement in one direction and allowing a movement in the opposite direction essentially without damping interaction, wherein the valve structure configuration is configured to obstruct water from passing in one direction and essentially letting water pass in the other direction. D1 does not explicitly disclose that the valve structure is provided by slits. However, D1 discloses (referring to FIG. 7), that the valve structure (flapper valve substructures) [36] consists of a matrix frame [44], defining a plurality of preferably rectangular cells [46] which extend therethrough; each rectangular cell [46] is closed at its upper end by a simple flapper valve [48] with a hinge [50] along one side of the cell. D1 also discloses that other types of valving arrangements may be used including holes, so long as their function is to provide sufficiently low resistance to downward movement of the damper plate to maintain tension on cables [28] and much higher resistance to upward movement to provide added apparent mass, based on the desired damping effect of the damper plate [26]. Therefore, the shape of the rectangular valve structure is not limited. See D1: col. 6 lines 18-58, col. 7 lines 6-25, 55-68, col. 8 lines 10-58, col. 9 lines 32-62 and Figs. 3, 5, 7. In view of above, the particular shape of the rectangular valve structure would have been considered a matter of preference to facilitate the desired damping effect to be achieved. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 provide such features as desired to facilitate performance of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, a plurality of winches [52] are provided to raise damper plate [26] to an out-of-the-water position between pontoons [16]. In addition, support elements [28] are provided with tension sensing means [I-N] such as strain gages, whereby the individual chain or cable tensions may be monitored. The sensors may also be used to permit adjusting the tension in each cable to a desired level at deployment.
Regarding claim 13, mooring chains [54] and anchors [56] attached to damper plate [26] are considered spacer elements which at least partly hold the dampening device [26] a distance from the floating marine structure (semi-submersible) [10].
Regarding claim 16, the arrangement includes the semi-submersible structure [10].
Regarding claim 20, the system is used with a semi-submersible structure [10].
21. As best understood by the examiner, claims 3-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 3986471 A (Haselton), cited by applicant, in view of D2: WO 2012/115508 A1 (SHLEBV), cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 3-12, D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the specific control unit features as claimed. However, D2 discloses such features for a motion damping system of a floating marine structure [1]. D2 discloses a stabilizing member [3] comprises a plate [5] suspended below water level from a wire [4]. The stabilizing member [3] is supported by a suspension arrangement [7, 10]. The wire [4] is hanging off from the suspension arrangement [10] such that it is clear from the floating structure [1]. A hoisting winch [46] is connected to the wire [4] such that the plate [5] can be raised or lowered to a desired depth below water level. A control unit [16], receiving input data from a terminal or console [47], is arranged to operate a tilting winch [45] for the plate [5] depending on the measured tension in the wire [4], the sea state and/or weather conditions and/or vessel motions. The data may be manually inputted into the control unit [16] by an operator, e.g. based on weather forecasts, or can alternatively be derived from a sensor that measures roll and/or pitch and/or heave movements of the floating structure [1] or which provides a control signal that depends on wave height. (See paragraphs [0044], [0048], [0049] and Figs. 1 and 3a). Angular rate sensors and gyroscopes are conventional motion sensors in the art; providing such would facilitate motion sensing as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 provide such features as desired to facilitate performance as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter. Regarding claim 19, the recited method steps would have been considered implicit in function and use of the device.
22. As best understood by the examiner, claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 3986471 A (Haselton), cited by applicant, in view of D3: US 5144904 A (Weldon), cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except wherein the system comprises two or more dampening devices symmetrically arranged around the floating marine structure, and wherein each dampening device comprises support structure extending in a parabolic surface comprising the valve structure and a plurality of openings as claimed. However, D3 discloses such features. D3 discloses a system [11] for motion damping of a floating marine structure [10], the system [11] comprising at least one parabolic dampening device [14] (submersible body assembly [14] includes a supporting spindle [15] provided at one end with a heavy weight [16] preferably formed of lead and disposed within a stepped cylindrical outer housing [17]. Supported coaxially on the spindle [15] is a generally dish-shaped body [18] which is in the form of an open grid of octagonal cross section and defined by eight grid panels [19] each being formed by a plurality of spaced apart generally parallel members [20] defining openings [21] therebetween). The dish-shaped body is considered parabolic inasmuch as such is shaped similar to applicant’s device in which applicant has disclosed as parabolic) configured to dampen movement in one direction and allowing movement in the opposite direction essentially without damping interaction. A suspension arrangement [12] comprising a wire [13] is configured to suspend the at least one dampening device [14] hanging at a suspended depth in water from the marine structure [10]. The dampening force induced by the least one dampening device [14] is subjected in the extension of the wire [13]. Each dampening device [14] is a passive damping device comprising a valve structure [19, 20, 21, 23] configured to dampen movement in one direction and allowing
movement in the opposite direction essentially without damping interaction. The valve structure will automatically open and close without requiring any other intervention than the water flow and/or pressure. The valve structure [19, 20, 21, 23] configuration is provided with slits/openings [21] configured to obstruct water from passing in one direction and essentially letting water pass in the other direction by the movement of the flap member [23] working like a larger check valve system. The type of check valve system is typically of the swing or flap type where a disc
pivots on a hinge or trunnion to prevent reverse flow. See col. 1, lines 34-58; column 2, lines 32-68; col. 3 lines 1, 2, 55-68; col. 4, lines 1-33; and Figs. 1-8). Providing multiple dampening devices with features similar to both D1 and D3 attached symmetrically to D1 would have been considered a matter of preference to facilitate functionality and performance as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 provide such features as desired to facilitate functionality and performance as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
23. As best understood by the examiner, claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 3986471 A (Haselton), cited by applicant, in view of D4: US 11519388 B2 (Karikomi). D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the floating structure is a spar construction or comprises a tower holding a wind turbine as claimed. However, D4 discloses such features in a semi-submersible used that can comprise both spar construction [20] and support a tower with a wind turbine [10]. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 provide such features as desired to facilitate functionality and performance as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
24. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references cited disclose various motion damping systems for marine structures.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
26. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
10/17/2025