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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Entralgo et al. (US 2005/0276665).
Regarding claim 1, Entralgo discloses a subsea system for recovering and launching flexible pipes and umbilicals (cable 99; paragraph 0019), comprising a marinized reel (40), a flexible pipe (conduit) wound on the reel, a motorization and torque transmission system (motor system 41), at least one floater (one or more buoyancy blocks 31), at least one motor (electric motor of hydraulic power unit 33; paragraph 0033), a structure to support the system (upper frame 30), a positioning system (guidance system 35), a DP (Dynamic Positioning) system (thrusters 52), and positioning sensors (depth sensors, not shown, housed on upper frame 30; sensor units 97) (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; paragraphs 0013 - 0022, 0025, 0026, 0028, 0031, 0033, 0034, and 0037).
Regarding claim 2, Entralgo further discloses the floater (31) maintains a neutral weight of the system (paragraph 0022). Although Entralgo fails to explicitly teach the floater maintains a neutral weight of the system, the floater (buoyancy block) as disclosed by Entralgo is capable of maintaining the weight of the system neutral and, therefore, the floater as disclosed by Entralgo reads on the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Entralgo further discloses the subsea system has visual control by cameras for launching or recovering (0031).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Entralgo et al. in view of Hasegawa et al. (WO 2016/067416).
Regarding claim 4, Entralgo discloses the subsea system as defined in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Entralgo discloses a method for recovering and launching flexible pipes and umbilicals, comprising the following steps: lowering the system to a working depth (the system 10 is lowered to a position proximate the seafloor 101); lowering one of the umbilicals to provide electrical power from the vessel (paragraph 0034); controlling lowering and positioning movements of the subsea system with a DP (Dynamic Positioning) system (guidance system 35 comprising thrusters 52; paragraph 0028); monitoring the system using position sensors (depth sensors, not shown, housed on upper frame 30; sensor units 97); anchoring (anchor point 103; paragraph 0041) an end of one of the flexible pipes to a seabed; driving a reel (40) (using motor 41); launching or recovering the flexible pipes wound on the reel (paragraph 0037); after exhausting the reel (40), lifting the reel (0039); replacing the exhausted reel with another reel (40) (paragraph 0039), and the system (10) lowers supported by a winch cable (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; paragraphs 0013 - 0022, 0025, 0026, 0028, 0031, 0033, 0034, 0037 - 0039, and 0041). Entralgo fails to disclose supporting the system at four vertices by winch cables. Hasegawa teaches lowering a subsea payload (140) supported at its four vertices by winch cables (Figs. 1 and 4E; paragraph 0015). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill the winch cables supporting a subsea system as taught by Hasegawa for the single winch cable as disclosed by Entralgo to provide more control over the positioning of the subsea system as it is being launched or recovered from a vessel.
Regarding claim 6, Entralgo in view of Hasegawa discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the specific depth (20 - 50 m) to which the system is lowered. Examiner takes the position that the specific depth to which the system is lowered lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon environmental factors within the water body, such as water currents.
Regarding claim 8, Entralgo further discloses the launch or recovery operation is controlled directly from the vessel and maintained on track by the dynamic positioning system (35; guidance system 36 as shown in Fig. 4; thrusters 52) (Fig. 4; paragraphs 0025, 0026, 0028, 0031, 0033, 0034, 0037, and 0040).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Entralgo et al. in view of Hasegawa et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Webster (GB 2522339). Entralgo in view of Hasegawa discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the specific distance (20 - 50 m) from the seabed to which the system is lowered. Webster teaches lowering a subsea system to a distance of 10 - 30 m above the seabed (page 8, lines 6 - 18). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the distance from the seabed as taught by Webster as a design consideration within the skill of the art. Where the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Entralgo does not disclose recovering and launching flexible cables and umbilicals. Examiner replies that the first sentence of the abstract of Entralgo explicitly discloses that the invention is “A system and method for deploying and/or retrieving a cable underwater.” Examiner notes that “deploying” is synonymous with “launching” and “retrieving” is synonymous with “recovering”. Examiner refers to paragraph 0019 of Entralgo which teaches the “cable 99 may be a conduit, wire, chain, or other flexible, spoolable material or the like”.
Applicant argues that Entralgo does not disclose a dynamic positioning system. Examiner replies that the guidance system 35 and thrusters 52 of Entralgo are used to aid in maneuvering and positioning the system during the cable laying operation. Examiner notes that thrusters are physical components of a Dynamic Positioning (DP) system to provide the physical force used to precisely maneuver the system.
Applicant argues that Applicant’s positioning sensors relate to the position of the subsea system and not merely the depth of a cable. Examiner responds that the claim(s) only recites positioning sensors and does not provide any structural limitations that preclude the interpretation of the depth sensors as taught by Entralgo from being interpreted as positioning sensors. Examiner notes that a depth sensor is used to identify the location (which is equivalent to a position) of a cable and is, therefore, a positioning sensor.
Applicant argues that Hasegawa does not disclose controlling lowering and positioning movements of the subsea system with a DP system and positioning sensors as claimed in claim 4. Examiner replies that Entralgo discloses controlling lowering and positioning movements of a subsea system with a DP system, positioning sensors, and a winch cable. Examiner only relied upon Hasegawa to teach lowering a subsea payload (140) supported at its four vertices by winch cables. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill the winch cables supporting a subsea system as taught by Hasegawa for the single winch cable as disclosed by Entralgo to provide more control over the positioning of the subsea system as it is being launched or recovered from a vessel.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art disclose minimizing catenary by supporting the system and lowering the system to a distance of 20 to 50m from the seabed with a DP system. Examiner replies that claim 6 does not require “minimizing catenary by supporting the system with a DP system”. Entralgo in view of Hasegawa teaches in the step supporting the system, the system lowers to a distance above the seabed as discussed above (see rejections of claims 4 and 6 above). Examiner takes the position that the specific depth to which the system is lowered lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon environmental factors within the water body, such as water currents. Additionally, Examiner notes that Webster teaches lowering a subsea system to a distance of 10 - 30 m above the seabed (page 8, lines 6 - 18). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the distance from the seabed as taught by Webster as a design consideration within the skill of the art. Where the range of article sizes disclosed in the prior art envelopes the recited range, and there is no showing of criticality of the recited range, such recited range would have been one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reven, 390 F.2d 997, 156 USPQ 679 (CCPA 1968).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights