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 § 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 11 and 13 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 11 recites the limitation "the foundation pile" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said at least one radial bearing" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of the “at least two radial bearings” as recited in lines 2- 3 of claim 13 “said at least one radial bearing” is referring.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said at least one axial bearing" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5, 7, and 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roodenburg et al. (US 2020/0347960).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Roodenburg discloses a temporary holding system for temporarily holding, during driving operations, a foundation pile (PI) intended to receive a mast of an off-shore wind turbine, wherein said temporary holding system (1) comprises: a sleeve (pile holder PH) delimiting a through-duct, intended to surround a section of said foundation pile (PI) and defining a longitudinal axis, and a carrier frame comprising an interface module (yoke YO) that carries said sleeve (PH), and a base (support structure SS) that is intended to be secured to a floating vessel (vessel VE), wherein said sleeve comprises: a primary section (base structure BS), assembled to said interface module, and at least one secondary section (first yaw Y1, second yaw Y2), carried by said primary section and rotatable between two configurations: a closed configuration to delimit said through-duct, and an open configuration to clear a lateral opening for a passage of said foundation pile, wherein said interface module and said primary section are assembled using bearing means intended to provide said sleeve with a rotational degree of freedom with respect to said interface module, about an axis of rotation extending coaxially to said longitudinal axis, and wherein said temporary holding system comprises rotational operation means (yaw actuation means comprising hydraulic cylinders 30), suitable to rotate said sleeve about said axis of rotation (Figs. 1 - 7; paragraphs 0184 - 0192, 0198, and 0201). Examiner notes that “about” is defined as “in the area or vicinity” or “all around; on every side” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/about) and that in order for the at least one secondary section (Y1, Y2) to move between a closed configuration and an open configuration, the yaws Y1, Y2 rotate in the area or vicinity/all around the axis of rotation extending coaxially to said longitudinal axis. Examiner takes the position that the claim does not preclude the interpretation of the two secondary sections from rotating in opposite directions. In order to move between open and closed configurations, Y1 rotates in one direction (i.e. clockwise) and Y1 rotates in an opposite direction (i.e. counterclockwise). Examiner takes the position that when the two yaws Y1, Y2 of Roodenburg pivot about their respective pivot axes, the two halves of the at least one secondary section are rotating all around the axis of rotation. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 12 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Roodenburg further discloses the bearing means comprise at least one bearing comprising a contact roller bearing that contains: rolling elements (pile guiding rollers GR), and a smooth raceway, centered on said axis of rotation (Figs. 2 - 5; paragraph 0191).
Regarding claim 7, Roodenburg further discloses the rolling means consist of cylindrical rollers (GR) distributed along at least one row (Figs. 2 - 4).
Regarding claim 10, Roodenburg further discloses the rolling elements (GR) are carried by the interface module (YO), and wherein the raceway is caried by the primary section (BS) of the sleeve (PH) (Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, Roodenburg discloses a floating vessel, including: a temporary holding system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and a system for driving (pile driving mechanism PDM; crane CR) said foundation pile (Pl) held in said temporary holding system (1) (Figs. 1 - 7; paragraphs 0184 - 0192, 0198, and 0201).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg et al. in view of Rabaut et al. (US 2021/0123203). Roodenburg further discloses the bearing means are arranged in such a way as to allow a rotational operation of said sleeve (PH) over an angular sector of at least 90 degrees on either side of a median axis passing through said longitudinal axis (Figs. 2 - 4). Roodenburg fails to disclose the primary section extends over an angular sector from 150 degrees to 250 degrees about said longitudinal axis. Rabaut teaches a primary section (main frame element 33) extends over an angular sector from 150 degrees to 250 degrees about said longitudinal axis (Figs. 1, 2, and 4A - 4C; paragraph 0092). Examiner takes the position that the specific angular sector over which the primary sector extends lacks criticality in the claims. Therefore, 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 angular sector as disclosed above with the angular sector in a range between 150 degrees and 250 degrees as taught by Rabaut as a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg et al. in view of Belder et al. (US 2017/0275845).
Regarding claim 3, Roodenburg further discloses at least one radial bearing (GR) (Figs. 2 - 5). Roodenburg fails to disclose at least one axial bearing. Belder teaches at least one radial bearing (guide wheels 15) and at least one axial bearing (wheels 17) (Fig. 2; paragraphs 0027 and 0028). 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 bearing means as disclosed above with at least one radial bearing and at least one axial bearing as taught by Belder to centralize the mast and ensure that the mast is maintained in a vertical orientation in the holding system.
Regarding claim 4, Roodenburg further discloses at least two radial bearings (GR): at least one first radial bearing, arranged in such a way as to receive centrifugal axial stresses, and at least one second radial bearing, arranged in such a way as to receive centripetal axial stresses (Figs. 2 - 5).
Regarding claim 6, Roodenburg further discloses at least one radial bearing (GR), wherein said at least one radial bearing (GR) comprises a radial contact roller bearing that contains: rolling elements (GR), and a smooth, circular arc raceway (unlabeled), coaxial and parallel to said axis of rotation (Figs. 2 -5). Roodenburg fails to disclose at least one axial bearing, wherein said at least one axial bearing comprises a contact roller bearing that contains: rolling elements, and a smooth, circular arc raceway, coaxial and perpendicular to said axis of rotation. Belder teaches at least one axial bearing (17), wherein said at least one axial bearing comprises a contact roller bearing that contains: rolling elements (17), and a smooth, circular arc raceway (unlabeled), coaxial and perpendicular to said axis of rotation (Fig. 2; paragraphs 0027 and 0028). 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 bearing means comprising at least one radial bearing as disclosed above with at least one radial bearing and at least one axial bearing as taught by Belder to centralize the mast and ensure that the mast is maintained in a vertical orientation in the holding system.
Regarding claim 13, Roodenburg further discloses at least two radial bearings (GR): at least one first radial bearing (GR), arranged in such a way as to receive centrifugal axial stresses, and at least one second radial bearing (GR), arranged in such a way as to receive centripetal axial stresses, and wherein said at least one radial bearing comprises a radial contact roller bearing that contains: rolling elements (GR), and a smooth, circular arc raceway (unlabeled), coaxial and parallel to said axis of rotation (Figs. 2 - 5). Roodenburg fails to disclose said at least one axial bearing comprises a contact roller bearing that contains: rolling elements, and a smooth, circular arc raceway, coaxial and perpendicular to said axis of rotation. Belder teaches at least one axial bearing (17), wherein said at least one axial bearing comprises a contact roller bearing that contains: rolling elements (17), and a smooth, circular arc raceway (unlabeled), coaxial and perpendicular to said axis of rotation (Fig. 2; paragraphs 0027 and 0028). 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 bearing means comprising at least one radial bearing as disclosed above with at least one radial bearing and at least one axial bearing as taught by Belder to centralize the mast and ensure that the mast is maintained in a vertical orientation in the holding system.
Regarding claim 14, Roodenburg further discloses the rolling means consist of cylindrical rollers (GR) distributed along at least one row (Figs. 2 - 5).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg et al. in view of Suksamake (US 5,492,436).
Regarding claim 8, Roodenburg discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cylindrical rollers are connected to each other to form at least one chain of cylindrical rollers. Suksamake teaches cylindrical rollers are connected to each other to form at least one chain of cylindrical rollers (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 4, lines 16 - 47) to prevent the rollers from falling out of the support block through the use of chain linking without sacrificing the flexibility of the rollers, thereby enabling the rollers to operate properly. 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 apparatus as disclosed above with the chain of cylindrical rollers as taught by Suksamake to prevent the rollers from falling out of the support block through the use of chain linking without sacrificing the flexibility of the rollers, thereby enabling the rollers to operate properly.
Regarding claim 9, Roodenburg further discloses the at least one bearing comprises several roller bearing modules (GR), wherein said roller bearing modules are distributed over part of the circumference of the axis of rotation (R) (Figs. 2 - 4). Roodenburg fails to disclose each module containing at least one chain of cylindrical rollers, and wherein, within each roller bearing module, the at least one chain of cylindrical rollers forms a chain of recirculating cylindrical rollers that includes: an active strand cooperating with the raceway, and a return strand. Suksamake teaches each module containing at least one chain of cylindrical rollers, and wherein, within each roller bearing module, the at least one chain of cylindrical rollers forms a chain of recirculating cylindrical rollers that includes: an active strand cooperating with the raceway, and a return strand (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 16 - 47) to prevent the rollers from falling out of the support block through the use of chain linking without sacrificing the flexibility of the rollers, thereby enabling the rollers to operate properly. 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 apparatus as disclosed above with the chain of cylindrical rollers as taught by Suksamake to prevent the rollers from falling out of the support block through the use of chain linking without sacrificing the flexibility of the rollers, thereby enabling the rollers to operate properly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Roodenburg does not disclose a sleeve constituted by the yaws Y1, Y2 rotate about its longitudinal axis. Examiner replies that “about” is defined as “in the area or vicinity” or “all around; on every side” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/about) and that in order for the at least one secondary section (Y1, Y2) to move between a closed configuration and an open configuration, the yaws Y1, Y2 rotate in the area or vicinity/all around the axis of rotation extending coaxially to said longitudinal axis. Examiner takes the position that the claim does not preclude the interpretation of the two secondary sections from rotating in opposite directions. In order to move between open and closed configurations, Y1 rotates in one direction (i.e. clockwise) and Y1 rotates in an opposite direction (i.e. counterclockwise). Examiner takes the position that when the two yaws Y1, Y2 of Roodenburg pivot about their respective pivot axes, the two halves of the at least one secondary section are rotating all around the axis of rotation.
Applicant argues that Roodenburg does not disclose that the second yaw Y2 is carried by the first yaw Y1, but that each yaw is carried by the base structure. Examiner has interpreted the first yaw Y1 and the second yaw Y2 as the “at least one secondary section” as recited in claim 1, and the claim does not require that the second of the secondary sections is carried by the first of the secondary sections. Examiner explains that claim 1 recites “at least one secondary section, carried by said primary section” and the at least one secondary section (Y1, Y2) as taught by Roodenburg is carried by the primary section (base structure BS) (Figs. 3 and 4).
Applicant argues that Belder does not disclose a sleeve having two sections which provide a closed configuration and an open configuration. Examiner replies that Belder was not relied upon to teach a sleeve having two sections which provide a closed configuration and an open configuration. Belder was only relied upon to teach at least one axial bearing.
Applicant argues that Rabut does not teach the ring structures have a rotational degree of freedom with respect to the hang-off frame about their common axis. Examiner replies that Rabut was not relied upon to teach the aforementioned limitation. Rabut was only relied upon to teach the angular sector of the primary section extends from 150 degrees to 250 degrees about the longitudinal axis.
Applicant argues that Suksamake does not relate to a system to hold a foundation pile of an off-shore structure and does not disclose a sleeve that has two sections that can be in an open configuration or a closed configuration. Examiner replies that Suksamake was not relied upon to teach the aforementioned limitations. Suksamake was relied upon to teach cylindrical rollers connected together to form at least one chain of cylindrical rollers.
Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art discloses a sleeve having a primary section and a secondary section carried by the primary section and rotatable between a closed configuration and an open configuration. Examiner replies that Roodenburg teaches about” is defined as “in the area or vicinity” or “all around; on every side” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/about) and that in order for the at least one secondary section (Y1, Y2) to move between a closed configuration and an open configuration, the yaws Y1, Y2 rotate in the area or vicinity/all around the axis of rotation extending coaxially to said longitudinal axis. Examiner takes the position that the claim does not preclude the interpretation of the two secondary sections from rotating in opposite directions. In order to move between open and closed configurations, Y1 rotates in one direction (i.e. clockwise) and Y1 rotates in an opposite direction (i.e. counterclockwise). Examiner takes the position that when the two yaws Y1, Y2 of Roodenburg pivot about their respective pivot axes, the two halves of the at least one secondary section are rotating all around the axis of rotation. Additionally, Examiner has interpreted the first yaw Y1 and the second yaw Y2 as the “at least one secondary section” is carried by the primary section (base structure BS) (Figs. 3 and 4).
Applicant argues that the sleeve as taught by the cited prior art is not configured to rotate with respect to the supporting structure. Examiner replies that, as discussed above, Roodenburg discloses at least one secondary section (Y1, Y2) is configured to rotate relative to the primary section (BS) and since the primary section (BS) is connected to the supporting structure (YO, SS) (Figs. 3 and 4), Roodenburg teaches the sleeve is configured to rotate with respect to the supporting structure.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach the position of the opening cannot be adjusted around the longitudinal axis. Examiner replies that the aforementioned limitation is not recited in the claims. Regardless, Examiner takes the position that the position of the opening defined by the Y1 and Y2 can be adjusted by opening and closing the yaws Y1, Y2 which changes the size, shape, and position of the opening.
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
12/17/2025