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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 February 2026 has been entered.
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(1)(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 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 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.
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 (thrusters 52); 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 (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 with respect to claims 1 - 4, 6, and 8 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 04 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hasegawa does not control controlling lowering and positioning movements of the subsea system with a DP system. Examiner replies that Hasegawa was not relied upon to teach controlling lowering and positioning movements of the subsea system with a DP system. Examiner only relied upon Hasegawa to teach supporting the system at 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.
Applicant argues that Webster does not disclose controlling lowering and positioning movements of the subsea system with a DP system. Examiner replies that Webster was not relied upon to teach controlling lowering and positioning movements of the subsea system with a DP system. Webster was only relied upon to teach lowering a subsea system to a distance of 10 - 30 m above the seabed.
Conclusion
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
3/30/2026