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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 30 June 2023. Claims 1-17 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-17 are currently amended.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/EP2021/087123, filed on 21 December 2021 with priority to Kingdom of Norway Application No. NO20201444 filed on 30 December 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 June 2023, 01 February 2024 and 08 March 2025 was considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “105a” has been used to designate both “105a” and “105b”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets fig. 3 top center “105a” to be “105b”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference character “401’” is not found in any of the figs. The Examiner notes that Figs. 4-5 is where the reference character was expected when reading the spec. page 11 of 15, line 5 “deck boundaries 401’”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the spec. to be correct, where the figs. require correction to add reference character “401’”. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
spec. page 11 of 15, line 5 recites “deck boundaries 401’” however no fig. showed “401’”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the spec. to be correct, where the figs. require correction to add reference character “401’”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13 recites “the second subsystem (100b)” where the rest of the claims have the reference character deleted. This should be “the second subsystem . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 use the word “means,” and are 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 “height adjusting means” that is coupled with functional language “for adjusting the height” 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: “height adjusting means” in claim 13 line 3 and “height adjusting means” in claim 14 lines 4-5. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “height adjusting means” to be as described in the spec. page 5 of 15 lines 20-24 which recites “…height adjusting means such as hydraulic cylinders and/or linear actuators for adjusting the height of the height adjustable support relative to a base floor during use. Such height adjusting means are fixed between the height adjustable supports and the base floor / deck.”
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.
Claims 1-9 and 15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the monopile support units" in line 12. Where claim 1 recites “a pile support unit” in line 9 and “the pile support unit(s)” in lines 18 and 23. It is not clear if the monopile support units are the same or different than the pile support units. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “the monopile support units” to be “pile support units”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 are rejected based on the independent claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the horizontal monopile" in lines 4 and 7. Where claim 3 recites “the monopile” in line 9. It is not clear if the horizontal monopile are the same or different than the monopile. Additionally, claim 1 recites “a horizontally oriented monopile” in line 1 and later “the monopile” in line 6. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “the horizontal monopile” to be “the monopile” to be consistent with the claim 1 and claim 3 language. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-5 are rejected based on the dependent claim 3 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pile" in line 5. Where claim 3 recites “the monopile” in line 9. It is not clear if the pile are the same or different than the monopile. Additionally, claim 1 recites “a horizontally oriented monopile” in line 1 and later “the monopile” in line 6. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “the pile” to be “the monopile” to be consistent with the claim 1 and claim 3 language. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 is rejected based on the dependent claim 4 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the monopile support units" in line 13. Where claim 9 recites “a pile support unit” in line 10 and “the pile support unit(s)” in lines 18 and 23. It is not clear if the monopile support units are the same or different than the pile support units. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “the monopile support units” to be “pile support units”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a base floor" in line 2. Where claim 13 recites the limitation "a base floor" in line 4. It is not clear if the base floor of claim 14 is the same or different than that of claim 13. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “a base floor” to be “the base floor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 and 16-17 are allowed.
Claims 1 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-8 and 15 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: Regarding independent claim 1, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…a pile support unit arranged on the height adjustable support such that the pile support unit is movable along the monopile's longitudinal axis, wherein the method comprises:…
…C. moving the pile support unit of the first subsystem a distance in direction away from the external support structure,
D. raising the height adjustable support of the first subsystem away from the base floor until the weight of the monopile is transferred from the external support structure to the first subsystem, and
E. moving the pile support units of the first and the second subsystems a distance in direction towards the external support structure.”. The closest prior art is the Applicant’s own art of Høvik (WO 2021245236 A1) {considered as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)} in view of Vannieuwehuyse et al. (EP 3650686 A1) and farther in view of Van Loon (US 10308327 B1) does not teach the pile support unit is movable along the monopile's longitudinal axis which is also interpreted as transverse to the ship’s deck as shown in claim 10. Høvik discloses a height adjustable pile bench 11 (See at least: figs. 1 and 3). Vannieuwehuyse et al. teaches a forklift mechanism 7 that moves over rail guides 16 in a direction 16 which is forward and aft of the ship’s deck as seen in figs. 5A-5B. Vannieuwehuyse et al. also teaches the forklift mechanism 7 is able to displace the monopile 3 in the vertical direction (up and down). Additionally, Van Loon teaches a device 2 which has two support platforms and two sea-fastening profiles 34 for accommodating a monopile 3 (See at least: fig. 3A). Where the device 2 of Van Loon has the same movements as taught by Vannieuwehuyse et al. See the fig. comparison of the three pieces of art below. Therefore, the method steps that move the pile support in the direction transverse to the ship’s deck are novel along with the step of raising the first subsystem as it is an additional step due to the pile support movement.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
1143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 9, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…a pile support unit arranged on the height adjustable support such that the pile support unit is movable along the monopile's longitudinal axis, wherein the method comprises:…
…C. moving the pile support unit of the first subsystem a distance in direction away from the external support structure,
D. raising the height adjustable support of the first subsystem away from the base floor until the weight of the monopile is transferred from the external support structure to the first subsystem, and
E. moving the pile support units of the first and the second subsystems a distance in direction towards the external support structure.”. Therefore, claim 9 is allowed for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding independent claim 10, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “… a pile support unit movably coupled on top of the height adjustable support such that the pile support unit is movable along the principal direction,…”. Where claim 10 defines the principal direction as transverse of a vessel’s deck. Therefore, claim 10 is allowed for at least the same reasoning as applied to claims 1 and 9 above.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Birdwell (US 3984007 A) teaches a pipe handling apparatus that uses rollers 151, 152 which moves pipe in the direction where the rollers rotate around. This was considered for the claim language of “…the pile support unit is moveable along...” however the Examiner interprets “along” as extending in a horizontal line; where the rollers do not move horizontally a distance.
Hovik (WO 2021245236 A1) see at least allowable subject matter above.
Vannieuwehuyse et al. (EP 3650686 A1) see at least allowable subject matter above.
Van Loon (US 10308327 B1) see at least allowable subject matter above.
Rabaut et al. (CA 3088839 A1) teaches monopile 4, device 1 and vessel 10 deck arrangement similar to the applicant (See at least: fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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 J 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615