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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-13, 15-27, 30-33, and 36-39 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “elements of Figure 6 should include the names of the elements, for example H1should be (human user interface (H1)). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “second, different damping setting” appears to be a typo graphical error and should be “second, different, damping setting”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “on the basis of” appears to be a typo graphical error and should be “on a basis of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “tolerance from 0” appears to be a typo graphical error and should be “tolerance from zero”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5-21, and 36-39 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.
In claim 3 line 3, the recited limitation “the pile” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In claim 5 lines 6-7, the recited limitation “a position and/or an orientation of the structure and/or the vessel” are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is the same position and/or orientation recited previously or if these are different limitations.
In claim 12 lines 14-15, the recited limitation(s) “a predetermined space and/or velocity range” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is the same limitation recited previously or if this is a different limitation.
In claim 13 line 5, the recited limitation “about the position” and “about the center” in line 8 are indefinite. This is a relative term, and it is unclear to the examiner what are the boundaries of about the position are. Further, in lines 6 and 8-9, the recited limitation (s) “center or inertia” are indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is intended to recite a center of inertia or is a different limitation of a center and inertia.
In claim 19 line 3, the recited limitation(s) “the first and the second respective settings” are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-11, 15-21, and 36-39 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13, 15-27, 30-33, and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-13, 15-27, 30-33, and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determining a coupling between the vessel and the structure when connected via the gripper, determining at least one of a stiffness and a damping of the coupling. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as coupling data between a vessel and gripper, stiffness data, and damping data could determine a coupling between the vessel and the structure when connected via the gripper, and determine at least one of a stiffness and a damping of the coupling. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving force data indicative of an interaction force between the structure and the gripper ; adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling based on one or more conditions relating to the structure, the gripper, the vessel, or a hoisting system supporting the structure; controlling a position and/or an orientation of the structure and/or the vessel, in particular controlling a position and/or orientation of the structure and the vessel with respect to each other, wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel on the basis of the force data. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (force data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The adjusting and controlling steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The specification encompasses the control and adjustment to be provided by an operator once data have been received (see specification pages 48-49).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, adjustment, and controlling steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-13, 15-21, and 23-24, 26, 30, and 36-39 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-13, 15-27, 30-33, and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 25-26, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rabaut et al (US 20210123203 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Rabaut discloses a method of controlling at least one of a position and an orientation of an elongated structure to be placed into a water bottom formation, connected via a gripper to a vessel (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]), the method comprising: determining a coupling between the vessel and the structure when connected via the gripper (see at least [0068], [0080-0085], [0091-0094], and [0100-0107]), determining at least one of a stiffness and a damping of the coupling (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), and adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling based on one or more conditions relating to the structure, the gripper, the vessel, or a hoisting system supporting the structure (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 2, Rabaut discloses obtaining at least one of load data, insertion data, vessel data, configuration data, and force data (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), wherein the load data is indicative of a load on the hoisting system supporting the structure (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), the insertion data is indicative of an insertion depth of the structure into the water bottom formation or indicative of a length of the structure protruding from the water bottom formation (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), the vessel data is indicative of at least one of a position, an orientation and a movement of the vessel (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), the configuration data is indicative of a relative position and/or movement of one or more movable parts of an actuator (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), and the force data is indicative of an interaction force between the structure and the gripper (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]); and adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling based on the at least one of the load data, the insertion data, the vessel data, the configuration data, and the force data (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 3, Rabaut discloses adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling based on an operational phase of placement of the pile into the water bottom formation (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 4, Rabaut discloses wherein adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling comprises: adjusting the stiffness of the coupling from a first stiffness setting to a second, different, stiffness setting, and/or adjusting the damping of the coupling from a first damping setting to a second, different damping setting (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 20, Rabaut discloses arranging the vessel in a body of water (see at least [0040], [0042], [0044], [0094] and [0111]), supporting the structure from a hoisting system of the vessel (see at least [0068], [0080-0085], [0091-0094], and [0100-0107]), connecting the structure via the gripper to the vessel (see at least [0068], [0080-0085], [0091-0094], and [0100-0107]), placing the structure onto and/or or into the water bottom formation of the body of water (see at least [0068], [0080-0085], [0091-0094], and [0100-0107]), driving the structure into the water bottom formation (see at least [0068], [0080-0085], [0091-0094], and [0100-0107]), and disconnecting the structure from the gripper and/or from the vessel (see at least [0068], [0080-0085], [0091-0094], and [0100-0107]).
With respect to claims 25 and 26, they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1 and 2. As such, claims 25 and 26 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1 and 2 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 30, Rabaut discloses at least one of a force sensor configured to detect an interaction force between the structure and the gripper, a structure data sensor configured to detect at least one of a position, an orientation and a movement of the structure, a vessel data sensor configured to detect at least one of a position, an orientation and a movement of the vessel, a load sensor configured to detect a load on a hoisting system supporting the structure (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]).
With respect to claim 38, Rabaut discloses wherein the controller implements a control system with at least two nested feedback loops (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]), wherein the at least two nested feedback loops include an inner feedback loop as a first feedback loop for dynamically adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling based on the force data (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]), and an outer feedback loop as a second feedback loop for motion compensation (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]), wherein the second feedback loop is configured to determine a required stiffness and/or damping of the coupling and provide set points to the first feedback loop based on the required stiffness and/or damping of the coupling (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]).
With respect to claim 39, Rabaut discloses wherein the at least two nested feedback loops further include a third feedback loop for inclination control of the structure, wherein the third feedback loop encloses the first and second feedback loops (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]).
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 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 5-13, 15-24, 27, 31-33, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabaut et al (US 20210123203 A1) in view of Zijlmans et al (US 20230348240 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Rabaut discloses a method of controlling at least one of a position and an orientation of an elongated structure to be placed into a water bottom formation, connected via a gripper to a vessel (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]), the method comprising: and controlling a position and/or an orientation of the structure and/or the vessel (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0044-0048], and [0056-0060]), in particular controlling a position and/or orientation of the structure and the vessel with respect to each other (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0044-0048], and [0056-0060]), and wherein the method further comprises: determining a coupling between the vessel and the structure when connected via the gripper (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0044-0048], and [0056-0060]), determining at least one of a stiffness and a damping of the coupling (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0044-0048], and [0056-0060]).
Rabaut do not specifically disclose receiving force data indicative of an interaction force between the structure and the gripper; wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel on the basis of the force data; and dynamically adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling, based at least in part on the force data.
Zijlmans teaches receiving force data indicative of an interaction force between the structure and the gripper (see at least [0027-0032]); wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel on the basis of the force data (see at least [0027-0032]); and dynamically adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling, based at least in part on the force data (see at least [0027-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rabaut to incorporate the teachings of Zijlmans of receiving force data indicative of an interaction force between the structure and the gripper; wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel on the basis of the force data; and dynamically adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling, based at least in part on the force data. This would be done to increase accuracy in positioning monopile onto seabed and reduce inaccuracies that may be caused while installing the monopile (see Zijlmans para 0002).
With respect to claim 6, Rabaut do not specifically disclose wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel comprises controlling an actuator between the vessel and the gripper based on the force data, in particular controlling the actuator to control the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel.
Zijlmans teaches wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel comprises controlling an actuator between the vessel and the gripper based on the force data (see at least [0027-0032]), in particular controlling the actuator to control the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel (see at least [0027-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rabaut to incorporate the teachings of Zijlmans wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel comprises controlling an actuator between the vessel and the gripper based on the force data, in particular controlling the actuator to control the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel. This would be done to increase accuracy in positioning monopile onto seabed and reduce inaccuracies that may be caused while installing the monopile (see Zijlmans para 0002).
With respect to claim 7, Rabaut discloses wherein controlling the actuator comprises controlling a force and/or a torque of a drive of the actuator and/or controlling a relative position and/or movement of movable parts of the actuator (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 8, Rabaut receiving structure data indicative of at least one of a position, an orientation and a movement of the structure (see at least [0044-0046], [0081-0083], [0087-0096], and [0111]), wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel also comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel based on the structure data (see at least [0044-0046], [0081-0083], [0087-0096], and [0111]).
With respect to claim 9, Rabaut discloses receiving vessel data indicative of at least one of a position, an orientation and a movement of the vessel, wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel also comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel based on the vessel data (see at least [0044-0046], [0081-0083], [0087-0096], and [0111]).
With respect to claim 10, Rabaut discloses receiving structure data indicative of at least one of a position, an orientation and a movement of the structure in Earth Coordinates and/or relative to the water bottom formation wherein the structure is to be placed (see at least [0044-0046], [0081-0083], [0087-0096], and [0111]), and/or receiving vessel data indicative of a position and/or a movement of the vessel, in particular a position and/or a movement of the vessel in Earth Coordinates and/or relative to the water bottom formation wherein the structure is to be placed (see at least [0044-0046], [0081-0083], [0087-0096], and [0111]), wherein controlling a position and/or an orientation of the structure and/or the vessel also comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel with respect to Earth Coordinates and/or with respect to the water bottom formation (see at least [0044-0046], [0081-0083], [0087-0096], and [0111]).
With respect to claim 11, Rabaut do not specifically disclose receiving load data, from a load sensor configured to detect a load on a hoisting system supporting the structure, wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel also comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel based on the load data.
Zijlmans teaches receiving load data, from a load sensor configured to detect a load on a hoisting system supporting the structure (see at least [0004], [0011], and [0016]), wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel also comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel based on the load data (see at least [0004], [0011], and [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rabaut to incorporate the teachings of Zijlmans of receiving load data, from a load sensor configured to detect a load on a hoisting system supporting the structure, wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel also comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel based on the load data. This would be done to increase accuracy in positioning monopile onto seabed and reduce inaccuracies that may be caused while installing the monopile (see Zijlmans para 0002).
With respect to claim 12, Rabaut discloses receiving configuration data indicative of a relative position and/or movement of one or more movable parts of the actuator (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), and/or receiving vessel data indicative of a position and/or a movement of the vessel (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), in particular a position and/or a movement of the vessel relative to the water bottom formation wherein the structure is to be placed (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel also comprises controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel based on the configuration data and/or the vessel data (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]), in particular in case the configuration data are indicative of the relative position and/or movement of movable parts of the actuator being outside of a predetermined space and/or velocity range, and/or in case the vessel data are indicative of the vessel being positioned and/or moving outside of a predetermined space and/or velocity range (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 13, Rabaut discloses determining a position on or in the water bottom formation wherein the structure is to be placed (see at least [0044-0048], [0096], and [0111]) and controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel symmetrically about the position (see at least [0044-0048], [0096], and [0111]); and/or determining a center of mass and/or a center or inertia of an assembly comprising the structure and the vessel connected via the gripper (see at least [0044-0048], [0096], and [0111]), and controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel symmetrically about the center of mass and/or the center or inertia (see at least [0044-0048], [0096], and [0111]).
With respect to claim 15, Rabaut discloses adjusting the stiffness of the coupling from a first stiffness setting to a second, different, stiffness setting, or from the second to the first stiffness setting, and/or adjusting the damping from a first damping setting to a second, different damping setting, or from the second to the first damping setting (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 16, Rabaut discloses adjusting the stiffness of the coupling to one or more stiffness settings in between the first and second stiffness settings; and/or adjusting the damping of the coupling to one or more damping settings in between the first and second damping settings (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 17, Rabaut discloses adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling on the basis of the force data, and/or, when received, one or more of structure data, vessel data, load data, configuration data, and insertion data (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
With respect to claim 18, Rabaut discloses receiving at least one of load data indicative of a load on a hoisting system supporting the structure, and insertion data indicative of an insertion depth of the structure into a water bottom formation and/or indicative of a length of the structure protruding from the water bottom formation (see at least [0111-0113]), and adjusting the stiffness of the coupling and/or adjusting the damping of the coupling on the basis of at least one of the load data and the insertion data (see at least [0111-0113]).
With respect to claim 19, Rabaut discloses adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling to one or more respective settings in between the first and second respective settings, on the basis of at least the load data and/or the insertion data (see at least [0037-0040], [0046], [0056-0060], and [0111-0113]).
With respect to claim 21, Rabaut do not specifically disclose controlling, during a balancing phase of placing the structure into the water bottom formation, an inclination of the structure to keep the inclination within a predefined tolerance from 0, based on inclination measurement data indicative of an inclination of the structure, wherein the structure is fully supported by the water bottom formation during the balancing phase, before being actively driven into the water bottom formation.
Zijlmans teaches controlling, during a balancing phase of placing the structure into the water bottom formation, an inclination of the structure to keep the inclination within a predefined tolerance from 0, based on inclination measurement data indicative of an inclination of the structure (see at least [0012-0013], [0016-0019] and [0029-0032]), wherein the structure is fully supported by the water bottom formation during the balancing phase, before being actively driven into the water bottom formation (see at least [0012-0013], [0016-0019] and [0029-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rabaut to incorporate the teachings of Zijlmans of controlling, during a balancing phase of placing the structure into the water bottom formation, an inclination of the structure to keep the inclination within a predefined tolerance from 0, based on inclination measurement data indicative of an inclination of the structure, wherein the structure is fully supported by the water bottom formation during the balancing phase, before being actively driven into the water bottom formation. This would be done to increase accuracy in positioning monopile onto seabed and reduce inaccuracies that may be caused while installing the monopile (see Zijlmans para 0002).
With respect to claim 22, Rabaut discloses a method of controlling at least one of a position and an orientation of an elongated structure to be placed into a water bottom formation, connected via a gripper to a vessel (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]), the method comprising: wherein the structure is fully supported by the water bottom formation during a balancing phase, before being actively driven into the water bottom formation (see at least [0019-0020], [0037-0040], [0046], and [0056-0060]).
However, Rabaut do not specifically disclose receiving inclination measurement data indicative of an inclination of the structure; and during a balancing phase of placing the structure into the water bottom formation, controlling the inclination of the structure based on the inclination measurement data to keep the inclination within a predefined tolerance from zero.
Zijlmans teaches receiving inclination measurement data indicative of an inclination of the structure (see at least [0012-0013], [0016-0019] and [0029-0032]); and during a balancing phase of placing the structure into the water bottom formation, controlling the inclination of the structure based on the inclination measurement data to keep the inclination within a predefined tolerance from zero (see at least [0012-0013], [0016-0019] and [0029-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rabaut to incorporate the teachings of Zijlmans of receiving inclination measurement data indicative of an inclination of the structure; and during a balancing phase of placing the structure into the water bottom formation, controlling the inclination of the structure based on the inclination measurement data to keep the inclination within a predefined tolerance from zero. This would be done to increase accuracy in positioning monopile onto seabed and reduce inaccuracies that may be caused while installing the monopile (see Zijlmans para 0002).
With respect to claim 23, Rabaut do not specifically disclose wherein controlling the inclination of the structure comprises providing an input to a motion compensation control loop or a position control loop for the gripper to ensure verticality of the structure within the predefined tolerance.
Zijlmans teaches wherein controlling the inclination of the structure comprises providing an input to a motion compensation control loop or a position control loop for the gripper to ensure verticality of the structure within the predefined tolerance (see at least [0012-0013], [0016-0019] and [0029-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rabaut to incorporate the teachings of Zijlmans wherein controlling the inclination of the structure comprises providing an input to a motion compensation control loop or a position control loop for the gripper to ensure verticality of the structure within the predefined tolerance. This would be done to increase accuracy in positioning monopile onto seabed and reduce inaccuracies that may be caused while installing the monopile (see Zijlmans para 0002).
With respect to claim 24, Rabaut do not specifically disclose wherein inclination measurement data indicates the inclination of the structure in an absolute Earth coordinate frame.
Zijlmans teaches wherein inclination measurement data indicates the inclination of the structure in an absolute Earth coordinate frame (see at least [0012-0013], [0016-0019] and [0029-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rabaut to incorporate the teachings of Zijlmans wherein inclination measurement data indicates the inclination of the structure in an absolute Earth coordinate frame. This would be done to increase accuracy in positioning monopile onto seabed and reduce inaccuracies that may be caused while installing the monopile (see Zijlmans para 0002).
Wit respect to claim 27, Rabaut discloses a system for controlling at least one of a position and an orientation of an elongated structure (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]), the system comprising: a gripper mountable or mounted to a vessel for connecting with the vessel via the gripper an elongated structure, such as a pile, in particular a pile to be placed into a water bottom formation while gripped by the gripper (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]); a computer comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]), and a processor, preferably a microprocessor, coupled to the computer readable storage medium, wherein responsive to executing the computer readable program code (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]), determining a coupling between the vessel and the structure (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]), when the gripper is mounted to the vessel and connects the elongated structure to the vessel (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]), and determining at least one of a stiffness and a damping of the coupling (see at least [0011], [0020], [0022-0023], [0040-0049], and [0096-0111]).
Rabaut do not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to perform executable operations comprising: receiving force data from a force sensor configured to detect an interaction force between the structure and the gripper; controlling based on the force data, a control system of the vessel and/or an actuator between the vessel and the gripper to control the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel in particular controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel with respect to each other; and dynamically adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling, based at least in part on the force data.
Zijlmans teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform executable operations comprising: receiving force data from a force sensor configured to detect an interaction force between the structure and the gripper (see at least [0012-0013], [0016-0019] and [0029-0032]); controlling based on the force data, a control system of the vessel and/or an actuator between the vessel and the gripper to control the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel in particular controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel with respect to each other (see at least [0012-0013], [0016-0019] and [0029-0032]); and dynamically adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling, based at least in part on the force data (see at least [0012-0013], [0016-0019] and [0029-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rabaut to incorporate the teachings of Zijlmans wherein the processor is configured to perform executable operations comprising: receiving force data from a force sensor configured to detect an interaction force between the structure and the gripper; controlling based on the force data, a control system of the vessel and/or an actuator between the vessel and the gripper to control the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel in particular controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and the vessel with respect to each other; and dynamically adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling, based at least in part on the force data. This would be done to increase accuracy in positioning monopile onto seabed and reduce inaccuracies that may be caused while installing the monopile (see Zijlmans para 0002).
With respect to claim 31, it is a system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 31 and 22. As such, claim 31 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 22 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 32, Rabaut discloses wherein controlling the inclination of the structure comprises providing an input to a motion compensation control loop or a position control loop for the gripper to ensure verticality of the structure within the predefined tolerance (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]).
With respect to claim 33, Rabaut discloses wherein the system is part of a vessel (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]).
With respect to claim 36, Rabaut discloses wherein controlling the position and/or the orientation of the structure and/or the vessel involves control by at least two nested feedback loops (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]), wherein the at least two nested feedback loops include an inner feedback loop as a first feedback loop for dynamically adjusting the at least one of the stiffness and the damping of the coupling based on the force data (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]), and an outer feedback loop as a second feedback loop for motion compensation (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]), wherein the second feedback loop is configured to determine a required stiffness and/or damping of the coupling and provide set points to the first feedback loop based on the required stiffness and/or damping of the coupling (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]).
With respect to claim 37, Rabaut discloses wherein the at least two nested feedback loops further include a third feedback loop for inclination control of the structure (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]), wherein the third feedback loop encloses the first and second feedback loops (see at least [0022], [0046], [0096], and [0111]).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667l
Prosecution Insights