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 § 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 2,3 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 2 line 2 calls for “the structure”; claim 2 line 1 calls for “pipeline hoisting structure”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 3 is solely rejected as being dependent from a rejected 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.
Claim(s) 1-3,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Double Hoist Crane (Overhead double hoist crane cranesdq.com, June 18,2018)
Double Hoist Crane teaches a “pipeline” hoisting structure, comprising two vertical beams joined together with a horizontal beam in a U-shape, and two hoisting systems, each being coupled to one of the two vertical beams of the pipeline hoisting structure,
wherein each hoisting system of the two hoisting systems comprises a cable and a set of cable steering pulleys; wherein each hoisting system of the two hoisting systems acts independently in relation to each other; and wherein a first hoisting system of the two hoisting systems acts as a main hoisting system and a second hoisting system of the two hoisting systems acts as a secondary hoisting system (see Double Hoist Crane).
Re claim 2, wherein the horizontal beam is arranged in an upper portion of the structure and connects with the two vertical beams (see Double Hoist Crane).
Re claim 3, wherein each of the two vertical beams is connected, at its lower end, to a fixing shoe that provides support and stability to the pipeline hoisting structure on a seabed.
Re claim 14, further comprising an additional containment system to support the pipeline hoisting structure (the 2nd double hoist crane depicted in tandem).
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.
Claim(s) 18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Single Girder Double Hoist … Control (Double Hook & Double Trolley Overhead Cranes eotcranekit.com April 22,2021) in view of The Examiner Taking Official Notice (electric crane hoist).
Single Girder Double Hoist discloses a pipeline hoisting structure, comprising two vertical beams joined together with a horizontal beam in a U-shape (see Single Girder Double Hoist) with an independent hoisting system affixed to an outward plane of each vertical beam (see Single Girder Double Hoist), each independent hoisting system is configured to hoist a pipeline entirely independent of each other. Singler Girder Double Hoist discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Single Girder Double Hoist is silent about the “electric crane hoist” includes a cable and a set of cable steering pulleys and having one end of the cable connected to a winch. The Examiner Takes Official Notice that it is well known and old in the art for Electric crane hoist to
include a cable and a set of cable steering pulleys and having one end of the cable connected to a winch. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Single Girder Double Hoist to include well know electric crane hoist since such a modification allows for the lifting of long, heavy and large loads with separate control
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-13,15,19,20 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 16,17 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
2/13/2026