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.
Claim 4 is 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.
In re Claim 4, the language requires that “the visco-elastic substance is applied to the outer surface of the offshore foundation pile, such that part of the visco-elastic substance extends below a lower edge of the tower; and the visco-elastic substance is applied to the inner surface of the tower, such that, part of the visco-elastic substance extends above an upper edge of the offshore foundation pile. However, Claim 1 requires that the visco-elastic substance be spaced apart from the upper end of the offshore foundation pile and the lower end of said at least one offshore element. When the tower section and pile are combined to form the offshore structure, the limitations of Claim 4 will contradict the requirements of Claim 1 stated above. This contradiction renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 8, the language requires that the visco-elastic substance is pushed partly outside a lower end of the tower and the visco-elastic substance is pushed upward out onto an upper end of the offshore foundation pile. However, Claim 7 requires that the visco-elastic substance be spaced apart from the upper end of the offshore foundation pile and the lower end of said at least one offshore element. When the tower section and pile are combined to form the offshore structure, the limitations of Claim 8 will contradict the requirements of Claim 7 stated above. This contradiction renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-16 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Gelder (EP 2910686) in view of Sutherland (U.S. 20040094903).
In re Claim 1 and 2, Van Gelder teaches an offshore structure, comprising a lower end of at least one offshore element (5,7) fitted over a top end at an offshore foundation pile (3,10) that extends along a longitudinal axis in a vertical direction, forming a slip joint (4) in the vertical direction of said longitudinal axis. (Figures 1,2)
Van Gelder does not teach that a surface area of the top end of the offshore foundation pile and/or a surface area of an inner surface of the at least one offshore element has been provided with a viscoelastic substance, wherein the visco-elastic substance is provided on an outer surface area of the offshore foundation pile that is spaced apart from an upper end of the offshore foundation pile and on an inner surface area of the at least one offshore element spaced apart from a lower end of said at least one offshore element.
Sutherland teaches a joint between two pipes (10,12) where a viscoelastic material (14,16,18) ring that is positioned in contact with the inner surface of one pipe and the outer surface of the other pipe at the joint itself. While close to the respective ends of the pipes, the viscoelastic material is not shown to be not in contact and therefore spaced from the furthest edge surfaces of the top of pipe (10) and the bottom of pipe (12). (Figures 1-2)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the viscoelastic material in the pipe joint taught by Sutherland in to the slip joint disclosed by Van Gelder. In the final combination, the viscoelastic substance is on an outer surface area of the offshore foundation pile and on an inner surface area of the at least one offshore element. As was stated, the elastomeric ring is spaced from the end surfaces of the pipes but should the applicant dispute this, the examiner maintains that placement of the elastomer ring away from the be obvious to place this ring in any location within the joint since it has been held that the placement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The sealing ring would help create a water tight joint.
In re Claim 3, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. Figure 2 of Sutherland shows the visco-elastic substance is applied such that at least overlapping surfaces of the top end of the offshore foundation pile/pipe (10) and the at least one offshore element/pipe (12) are separated/spaced from each other by the visco-elastic substance (14,16). When placed between the offshore element and the pile in the van Gelder/Sutherland combination, the weight of the off-shore element will transfer to the pile by the visco-elastic substance positioned between them. This occurs because the forces will travel from member to member.
In re Claim 4, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. As was noted above, the claim limitations render the scope of the claim indefinite. As was noted, Sutherland teaches a joint between two pipes (10,12) where a viscoelastic material (14,16,18) ring that is positioned in contact with the inner surface of one pipe and the outer surface of the other pipe at the joint itself. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place this ring in any location within the joint since it has been held that the placement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would include placement where it would extend below a lower edge of the tower and above an upper edge of the foundation pile in order to help create a water tight joint be preventing water from entering at the joint boundaries.
In re Claims 5, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. As was previously stated, Van Gelder teaches fitting a lower end of at least one offshore element windmill tower (5,7) over a top end at an offshore foundation pile (3,10) forming a slip joint (4). In the combination, this slip joint (second slip joint) would have a viscoelastic substance. Van Gelder also discloses in Paragraph 33 that a platform superstructure can be mounted on the pile. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the disclosed slip joint to also mount a platform as well forming the first slip joint. The examiner notes that direct is a broad term that does not require immediate abutting contact. A picture hung on a wall may be thought of as directly attached to the wall where it is actually hung from a nail. The examiner also notes that the instant application shows a platform that is mounted with what could be considered intervening parts/supports (20). Therefore, the Van Gelder platform is as directly mounted as the applicants disclosed invention. Furthermore, substructure could also be considered a part of the platform. If platform is attached to the foundation pile, then that slip joint (the first slip joint) would be below the second slip joint that is formed by placing the windmill tower element (5,7) over a top end at an offshore foundation pile (3,10).
In re Claims 6, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. In the combination, the inner surface of the Van Gelder offshore element (5,7) and outer surface areas of the foundation pile (3,10) are provided with said visco- elastic substances. The intervening viscoelastic material will space apart the inner and outer surface areas and will extend longitudinally along the joint itself.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place this ring in any location within the joint since it has been held that the placement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would include placement on surface areas that are longitudinally spaced apart from each other order to help create a water tight joint be preventing water from entering at the joint boundaries. (Sutherland Figures 1,2), (Van Gelder Figures 2a,2b)
In re Claim 7, Van Gelder teaches an offshore structure, comprising a lower end of at least one offshore element (5,7) fitted over a top end at an offshore foundation pile (3,10) that extends along a longitudinal axis in a vertical direction, forming a slip joint (4) in the vertical direction of said longitudinal axis,
Van Gelder does not teach that a surface area of the top end of the offshore foundation pile and/or a surface area of an inner surface of the at least one offshore element has been provided with a viscoelastic substance, wherein the visco-elastic substance is provided on an outer surface area of the offshore foundation pile that is spaced apart from an upper end of the offshore foundation pile and on an inner surface area of the at least one offshore element spaced apart from a lower end of said at least one offshore element.
Sutherland teaches a joint between two pipes (10,12) where a viscoelastic material (14,16,18) ring that is positioned in contact with the inner surface of one pipe and the outer surface of the other pipe at the joint itself. While close to the respective ends of the pipes, the viscoelastic material is not shown to be not in contact and therefore spaced from the furthest edge surfaces of the top of pipe (10) and the bottom of pipe (12). (Figures 1-2)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the viscoelastic material in the pipe joint taught by Sutherland in to the slip joint disclosed by Van Gelder. In the final combination, the viscoelastic substance is on an outer surface area of the offshore foundation pile and on an inner surface area of the at least one offshore element. As was stated, the elastomeric ring is spaced from the end surfaces of the pipes but should the applicant dispute this, the examiner maintains that placement of the elastomer ring in any location within the joint would be obvious since it has been held that the placement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would include placement of the viscoelastic ring material on two surface areas that are longitudinally spaced apart from each other order to help create a water tight joint be preventing water from entering at the joint boundaries.
In re Claims 8, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. As was noted above, the claim limitations render the scope of the claim indefinite. As was previously, the modified Van Gelder teaches fitting a lower end of at least one offshore element windmill tower (5,7) over a top end at an offshore foundation pile (3,10) forming a slip joint (4). (Figures 1-2) In the combination a viscoelastic material is positioned within the slip joint. Viscoelastic materials are compressible and deform and spread out under pressure. As was noted, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place this ring in any location within the joint since it has been held that the placement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would include modifying Van Gelder with viscoelastic ring material (Sutherland) on two surface areas that are longitudinally spaced apart from each other so that visco-elastic substance on the surface area of the top end of the offshore foundation pile pushes partly outside a lower end of the tower and the visco-elastic substance in the surface area of the inner surface of the offshore element pushes upward out onto an upper end of the offshore foundation pile. This would help create a water tight joint be preventing water from entering at the joint boundaries.
In re Claims 9, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. Figures 2a and 2b of Van Gelder show lower ends (8) of offshore elements and the upper end (9) of foundation piles are substantially continuous truncated conical surfaces that overlap to form a slip joint Further, as was noted above the modified Van Gelder teaches viscoelastic ring material (Sutherland) on two surface areas that are longitudinally spaced apart from each other within the slip joint.
In re Claims 10,11, and 14, Van Gelder teaches an offshore structure comprising a pile of a foundation (3,10) and at least one offshore element (5,7), mounted on the pile, forming a slip joint (4).
Van Gelder does not teach that between an inner surface of the at least one offshore element and an outer surface of the pile there is a coating preventing corrosion of one or both of the inner and outer surfaces,
Sutherland teaches a joint between two pipes (10,12) where a viscoelastic material/rubber (14,16,18) coating in contact with the inner surface of one pipe and the outer surface of the other pipe at the joint itself. Such a viscoelastic substance would be capable of inhibiting corrosion between the inner and outer surfaces. (Figures 1-2)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the viscoelastic material in the pipe joint taught by Sutherland in to the slip joint disclosed by Van Gelder. The sealing ring would help create a water tight joint.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place sealing rings in any location within the joint since it has been held that the placement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would include the placement at least two spaced apart areas using a viscoelastic substance to form seals between the said outer surface and the said inner surface. One seal would be near an upper end of the pile and the offshore element and another between a lower end of the at least one offshore element and the pile. A space would be located between these two seals. Again, The sealing rings would help create a water tight joint.
In re Claims 13, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. As was noted above, the claim limitations render the scope of the claim indefinite. As was previously, the modified Van Gelder teaches fitting a lower end of at least one offshore element windmill tower (5,7) over a top end at an offshore foundation pile (3,10) forming a slip joint (4). (Figures 1-2) In the combination a viscoelastic material is positioned within the slip joint. Viscoelastic materials are compressible and deform and spread out under pressure. As was noted, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place this ring in any location within the joint since it has been held that the placement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. This would include modifying Van Gelder with viscoelastic ring material (Sutherland) on two surface areas that are longitudinally spaced apart from each other so that visco-elastic substance on the surface area of the top end of the offshore foundation pile pushes/extends partly outside a lower end of the tower and the visco-elastic substance in the surface area of the inner surface of the offshore element pushes/extends upward out onto an upper end of the offshore foundation pile. This would help
In re Claims 12 and 16, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. Sutherland teaches that the sealing ring/coating is made with self-adhesive material that is flexible, elastomeric, and therefore capable of being molded. (Paragraph 16)
In re Claims 15 and 18, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. In the combination, the inner surface of the Van Gelder offshore element (5,7) and outer surface areas of the foundation pile (3,10) are provided with said visco- elastic substances. The intervening viscoelastic material will be between the inner and outer surface areas of the offshore element and pile.
Figures 2a and 2b of Van Gelder show lower ends (8) of offshore elements and the upper end (9) of foundation piles are substantially continuous truncated conical surfaces that overlap to form a slip joint. As was noted above the modified Van Gelder teaches viscoelastic ring material (Sutherland) on two surface areas that are longitudinally spaced apart from each other within the slip joint. The truncated conical surfaces of the lower ends (8) of offshore elements and the upper end (9) of foundation piles mean that the intervening viscoelastic material will be between opposing sloping surfaces.
In re Claims 19, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. The elastomeric ring (14,16,18) is made from an elastomeric material such as a vulcanized rubber which has antifouling properties. (Figures 1,2; Paragraph 0016)
In re Claims 20 and 21, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. As was previously stated, Van Gelder teaches fitting a lower end of at least one offshore element windmill tower (5,7) over a top end at an offshore foundation pile (3,10) forming a slip joint (4). In the combination, this slip joint (second slip joint) would have a viscoelastic substance. Van Gelder also discloses in Paragraph 33 that a platform superstructure can be mounted on the pile. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the disclosed slip joint to also mount a platform as well forming the first slip joint. The examiner notes that direct is a broad term that does not require immediate abutting contact. A picture hung on a wall may be thought of as directly attached to the wall where it is actually hung from a nail. The examiner also notes that the instant application shows a platform that is mounted with what could be considered intervening parts/supports (20). Therefore, the Van Gelder platform is as directly mounted as the applicants disclosed invention. Furthermore, substructure could also be considered a part of the platform. If platform is attached to the foundation pile, then that slip joint (the first slip joint) would be below the second slip joint that is formed by placing the windmill tower element (5,7) over a top end at an offshore foundation pile (3,10).
In re Claim 22, Van Gelder modified by Sutherland has been previously discussed. Lubricant can be considered a filler that is provided at coating material (16,18) into a pocket (21). This lubricant/filler is between the coating material (16) and the membrane surface and the adjacent/nearby surfaces of the pipe (12). (Figures 1,2 Paragraphs 16-20)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 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.
The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest an offshore structure with the combination of characteristics specified in the independent claim. Of particular note are the requirement for a layer comprising fibers on a carrier foil, wherein the fibers are embedded in a resin, wherein the resin is a cured acrylic. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights