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 .
A Request for Prioritized Examination (Track 1) to make the application special was filed by the applicant on May 1, 2023, and dismissed on June 13, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 1, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 18, 2023, January 9, 2024 and June 11, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,355. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-30 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1-30 of US 11,932,355. In other words, claims 1-30 of US 11,932,355 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 1-30 and therefore anticipate claims 1-30. Since claims 1-30 are anticipated by claims 1-30 of US 11,932,355, claims 1-30 are not patentably distinct from claims 1-30 of US 11,932,355, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1-30 of US 11,932,355.
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 9-10 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 9 recites the limitation "the seabed tubular system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and is thus also rendered indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 14-17, 22-24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 6,886,611) in view of Deletre et al. (US 9,731,795).
Dupont et al. discloses a fluid cargo handling system, as shown in Figures 1-30, which is comprised of a marine platform or vessel, defined as Part #9, with a buoyant hull having an upper deck, a hull bottom and first and second sides, as shown in Figure 3, a lifting and handling crane that is mounted to said upper deck, as shown in Figure 3, a liquid manifold assembly, defined as Part #18, that is carried by said marine platform or vessel and is in fluid communication with at least two cryogenic hoses, defined as Part #19, as shown in Figures 2-3, and a marine manifold tower system which includes an elongated tower with a connection platform, defined as Part #11, having a seabed engagement system at a first end of said tower, as shown in Figure 2, and a hose manifold assembly, defined as Part #17, at a second end of said tower, as shown in Figure 5A, where said hose manifold assembly includes at least two hose connectors, defined as Parts #16 and 23. Said elongated tower is further comprised of an access system for access to an access platform, as shown in Figure 5A, which must inherently include means for allowing personnel to reach said access platform.
Dupont et al., as set forth above, discloses all of the features claimed except for the use of a marine platform with at least two hose reels that are carried on said marine platform.
Deletre et al. discloses a fluid cargo handling system, as shown in Figures 1-14, which is comprised of a marine platform or vessel, defined as Part #3, with a buoyant hull having an upper deck, a hull bottom and first and second sides, as shown in Figures 1-2, a lifting and handling crane, defined as Part #7, that is mounted to said upper deck, and a liquid manifold assembly with a drum, defined as Part #5, that supports at least three hose reels and at least three cryogenic hoses, each defined as Part #4, where an end of each of said cryogenic hoses is connected to said liquid manifold assembly and drum, as shown in Figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize at least two hose reels with cryogenic hoses that are mounted to a marine platform, as taught by Deletre et al., in combination with the fluid cargo handling system as disclosed by Dupont et al. for the purpose of providing a fluid cargo handling system with a marine platform having means to support a plurality of cryogenic hoses so as to facilitate the connection of said hoses between said marine platform and a marine manifold tower system.
Claims 13 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. in view of Deletre et al., and further in view of Richardson et al. (US 3,191,201).
Dupont et al. in combination with Deletre et al. shows all of the features claimed except for the use of a drive system with first and second drive devices that are carried by a marine platform, and first and second drivelines that extend from a hull bottom of said marine platform.
Richardson et al. discloses a mooring system for a marine platform or vessel, as shown in Figures 1-2, which is comprised of a marine platform or vessel, defined as Part #10, with a drive system that includes first and second drive devices or windlasses, defined as Part #30, and first and second drivelines in the form of mooring cables, defined as Part #12, which extend from said first and second drive devices and through a hull bottom of said marine platform or vessel, as shown in Figure 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize a marine platform with a drive system having first and second drive devices and first and second drivelines, as taught by Richardson et al., in combination with the fluid cargo handling system as disclosed by Dupont et al. and the teachings of Deletre et al. for the purpose of providing a fluid cargo handling system with a marine platform having a drive system for mooring lines so as to facilitate the positioning of a marine platform on a body of water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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 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 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.
December 15, 2025
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615