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 .
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 1-9 & 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikihisa et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP2016-226194A) in view of Secher (US Patent 6,009,907), Latimer et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0337607), Harbison et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0071480), & Whiddon et al. (US Patent 9,091,146).
Regarding Claim 1, Rikihisa discloses an offshore system (i.e. offshore wind power generation facility 20) comprising:
a dynamic submarine power cable (i.e. undersea/submarine cable 1),
an air-installed structure (i.e. protective pipe/tube 3) having a lower end and a top end, the structure having a central channel extending from the lower end to the top end, the central channel receiving the dynamic submarine power cable with a radial spacing between an inner surface of the central channel and an outer surface of the dynamic submarine power cable along the length of the dynamic submarine power cable arranged in the structure, the radial spacing forming a longitudinal channel between the structure and the dynamic submarine power cable, and
a fluid flow device (i.e. cooling device 10 w/ pressure pump 5a & injection pipe 7) configured to generate a fluid flow inside the longitudinal channel (Fig. 1, 4, 8; Abstract; Paragraphs 0010, 0017, 0028-0031, 0045-0046, 0052-0055, 0061-0062). The drawings show that protective tube/pipe 3 is installed above water and exposed to the air.
Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the structure is a bend stiffener having a lower end and a top end both positioned above water.
Secher teaches that the structure is a bend stiffener (i.e. stiffener 13/19/26/47) (Fig. 2-5, 8, 16; Abstract; Column 4, line 17-Column 5, line 46; Column 6, line 15-57; Column 7, line 46- Column 8, line 25).
Secher teaches that it is well known in the art to include a bend stiffener with cooling features such as water circulation/cooling channels 15/21/28/50 that can help prevent excessive bending of a flexible conduit while provided improved cooling. Latimer teaches that it is well known in the art to combine a bend stiffener 50 and a J-tube 60 in a subsea structure similar to the ones of Rikihisa & Secher in order to further protect the structure from excessive cyclic bending due to movement that may be caused by waves, current or wind (Fig.1-3 ; Abstract; Paragraphs 0001, 0003-0005, 0008, 0013-0015, 0043-0045, 0057-0060). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine protective tube of Rikihisa with the bend stiffener of Secher, as taught by Secher & Latimer, in order to protect the power cable or flexible conduit from excessive bending while providing improved cooling. Secher teaches that the stiffener may only be partly submerged or not submerged (Column 7, line 62-64).
Harbison teaches that the bend stiffener is an air-installed bend stiffener (i.e. bend stiffener 10) having a lower end and a top end both positioned above water (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0011-0012).
Harbison teaches that it is well known in the art of conventional bend stiffeners for said bend stiffeners to be submerged or installed above the water surface. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the bend stiffener of Rikihisa modified by Secher & Latimer an air-installed bend stiffener having a lower end and a top end both positioned above water, as taught by Harbison, as an alternate configuration which would provide installation flexibility.
Whiddon also teaches that the bend stiffener is an air-installed bend stiffener (i.e. bend stiffener 160) having a lower end and a top end both positioned above water (Fig. 11; Column 2, line 43-46; Column 3, line 16- Column 5, line 26; Column 7, line 31-37).
Whiddon also teaches that it is well known in the art of conventional bend stiffeners for said bend stiffeners to be submerged or installed above the water surface/line. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the bend stiffener of Rikihisa modified by Secher & Latimer an air-installed bend stiffener having a lower end and a top end both positioned above water, as taught by Harbison, as an alternate configuration which would provide installation flexibility.
Regarding Claim 2, Rikihisa discloses that the fluid flow device (i.e. cooling device 10 w/ pressure pump 5a & injection pipe 7) is configured to generate the fluid flow in a direction from the top end towards the lower end (Fig. 1, 4, 6; Abstract; Paragraphs 0017, 0028-0031, 0045-0046, 0052-0055). Particularly shown in Fig. 4 & 6.
Regarding Claim 3, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the fluid flow device is configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-10 m/s.
Since Rikihisa is concerned with the cooling of the submarine cable and uses pressure pump such as a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner to do so, one skilled in the art would adjust or configure the speed of the fluid flow (air flow) according to the heat and temperature conditions and requirements of the system and its submarine cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the fluid flow device configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-10 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation or optimization. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 4, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the fluid flow device is configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-5 m/s.
Since Rikihisa is concerned with the cooling of the submarine cable and uses pressure pump such as a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner to do so, one skilled in the art would adjust or configure the speed of the fluid flow (air flow) according to the heat and temperature conditions and requirements of the system and its submarine cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the fluid flow device configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-5 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation or optimization. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 5, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the fluid flow device is configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-3 m/s.
Since Rikihisa is concerned with the cooling of the submarine cable and uses pressure pump such as a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner to do so, one skilled in the art would adjust or configure the speed of the fluid flow (air flow) according to the heat and temperature conditions and requirements of the system and its submarine cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the fluid flow device configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-3 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation or optimization. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 6, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the fluid flow device is configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-2 m/s.
Since Rikihisa is concerned with the cooling of the submarine cable and uses pressure pump such as a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner to do so, one skilled in the art would adjust or configure the speed of the fluid flow (air flow) according to the heat and temperature conditions and requirements of the system and its submarine cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the fluid flow device configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-3 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation or optimization. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 7, Rikihisa discloses that the fluid flow device comprises a first fan (i.e. a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner) (Paragraph 0046). Secher also teaches using a fluid flow device (i.e. pump 78) that comprises a first fan (Fig. 16; Column 7, line 46- Column 8, line 25).
Regarding Claim 8, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the fluid flow device comprises includes a second fan. However, Rikihisa does disclose that cooling device 10 consists of a pressure pump/device 5a which can be a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner which one skilled in the art would know to include at least one fan. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a second fan, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Furthermore, a second fan would improve the removal of heat from the system by increasing air flow.
Regarding Claim 9, Rikihisa discloses that the fluid flow is an air flow (Paragraphs 0017 & 0046).
Regarding Claim 11, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the dynamic submarine power cable is a high voltage power cable rated for a voltage of at least 66 kV.
Rikihisa is silent on the specific voltage rating of the submarine cable of the offshore wind power generation facility. However, it is well known in the art of wind turbine systems for these systems to produce such voltage levels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the submarine cable of Rikihisa would be a power cable rated for a voltage of at least 66 kV, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 12, Rikihisa discloses that an offshore floating structure, wherein the bend stiffener is connected to the offshore floating structure (Fig. 1, 4, 6, 8; Abstract; Paragraph 0028). Offshore wind power generation facility 20 is of a floating type which floats on the ocean.
Regarding Claim 13, Rikihisa discloses that the offshore floating structure is one of a floating wind turbine, a floating substation, a floating hydrocarbon platform or a floating hydrocarbon vessel (Fig. 1, 4, 6, 8; Abstract; Paragraphs 0004, 0028-0029). The drawings show that offshore wind power generation facility 20 comprises a floating wind turbine.
Regarding Claim 14, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the fluid flow device is configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-10 m/s.
Since Rikihisa is concerned with the cooling of the submarine cable and uses pressure pump such as a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner to do so, one skilled in the art would adjust or configure the speed of the fluid flow (air flow) according to the heat and temperature conditions and requirements of the system and its submarine cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the fluid flow device configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-10 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation or optimization. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 15, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the fluid flow device is configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-5 m/s.
Since Rikihisa is concerned with the cooling of the submarine cable and uses pressure pump such as a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner to do so, one skilled in the art would adjust or configure the speed of the fluid flow (air flow) according to the heat and temperature conditions and requirements of the system and its submarine cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the fluid flow device configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-5 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation or optimization. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 16, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the fluid flow device is configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-3 m/s.
Since Rikihisa is concerned with the cooling of the submarine cable and uses pressure pump such as a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner to do so, one skilled in the art would adjust or configure the speed of the fluid flow (air flow) according to the heat and temperature conditions and requirements of the system and its submarine cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the fluid flow device configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-3 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation or optimization. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 17, Rikihisa does not explicitly disclose that the fluid flow device is configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-2 m/s.
Since Rikihisa is concerned with the cooling of the submarine cable and uses pressure pump such as a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner to do so, one skilled in the art would adjust or configure the speed of the fluid flow (air flow) according to the heat and temperature conditions and requirements of the system and its submarine cable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the fluid flow device configured to generate the fluid flow with a speed in a range of 0.5-3 m/s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation or optimization. It has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 18, Rikihisa discloses that the fluid flow device comprises a first fan (i.e. a blower, a compressor, or an air conditioner) (Paragraph 0046). Secher also teaches using a fluid flow device (i.e. pump 78) that comprises a first fan (Fig. 16; Column 7, line 46- Column 8, line 25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest “an air-installed bend stiffener having a lower end and a top end both positioned above water” as now required by amended claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and has addressed the amendment above with additional prior art.
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 RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm PST.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached on (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights