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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heskin et al (US 2008/0260468) in view of Mattson (US 8087373). With respect to claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12-14, Heskin et al disclose the basic claimed structure including an offshore submergible platform system with a floating platform 429, a sea floor template/anchor slab of concrete, the slab having a top surface and being positioned on a sea floor below the floating platform with a top surface facing upwardly, the slab having openings, a plurality of anchors 225, the anchors having a top end and a bottom end, the top end being affixed on the floating platform and the bottom end extending through the slab (Figure 1), a crane (Figure 1), a stub tower (Figure 1) affixed to the top of the floating platform for supporting work platform 140 with living quarters (paragraph 0019), and cable braces. Not disclosed by Heskin et al is the floating platform comprised of a cement and buoyant polymer. Mattson teaches a floating structure of cement and foam polymer (column 2, lines 10-30). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Heskin et al with the platform and stub tower being cement and a polymer as taught by Mattson with a high likelihood of success for improved safety by providing additional buoyancy. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in designing multimillion dollar offshore structures would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person of ordinary skill would be familiar with various structural materials and would have found the combination to have been obvious. With respect to claims 3, 6-7, it would have been an obvious choice of engineering design before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used open celled foam with a high likelihood of success for improved safety, use grout for durability and drill pipe for oil transfer.
Claim(s) 5 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heskin et al (US 2008/0260468) in view of Mattson (US 8087373), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Belinsky (US 2008/0240864). With respect to claim 5, Heskin et al do not disclose tension legs and a wind tower. Belinsky teaches tension legs (Abstract) and a wind tower (Figure 1) and generator (paragraph 0013). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Heskin et al with the platform tension legs and a wind tower and generator as taught by Belinsky with a high likelihood of success for improved securement in rough seas and to collect energy from wind. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in designing multimillion dollar offshore structures would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person of ordinary skill would be familiar with various offshore anchoring systems and would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claim 14 is further 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. The use of “preferably” (line 1) is indefinite.
Claims 2 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-18 are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Denker et al (US 2014/0369766) shows a drill platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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, Marc Q. Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights