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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 21 (and all claims that depend therefrom) 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.
Regarding claim 5, line 3 recites “another lifting fork.” It is unclear if this is one of the “pair of lifting forks” recited in parent claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, line 2 recites that the “a center of gravity of the floating installation is positioned between the pair of lifting forks.” There are two main clarity issues.
First, the floating installation is not positively recited, so it is unclear how this limits the claimed device.
Second, whether or not a center of gravity of a floating installation being positioned between the pair of lifting forks is a matter of how the device is used, not a structural property. It is unclear how the results of one usage scenario limit an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 8, line 2 recites that the “lifting fork extends across the underside of the floating installation.” As the floating installation is not positively recited, it is unclear how this limits the claimed device.
Regarding claim 10, line 2 recites “the at least one reciprocal surface (of the floating installation) comprises a reciprocal profile.” As the floating installation is not positively recited, it is unclear how this limits the claimed device.
Regarding claim 14, line 2 recites “the floating installation is tethered to the seafloor.” As the floating installation is not positively recited, it is unclear how this limits the claimed device.
Regarding claim 15, line 2 recites “the tension in the at least one mooring line.” As the mooring line is not positively recited, it is unclear how this limits the claimed device.
Regarding claim 18, line 2 recites “a resultant lifting force is less than a threshold mooring line tension.” As the mooring line is not positively recited, it is unclear how this limits the claimed device.
Regarding claim 19, line 2 recites “a lifting force exerted by the at least one submerged elongate lifting fork does not cause a turning moment about a center of gravity of the floating installation.” There are two main clarity issues.
First, the floating installation is not positively recited, so it is unclear how this limits the claimed device.
Second, whether or not a turning moment results is a matter of how the device is used, not a structural property. It is unclear how the results of one usage scenario limit an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 21, line 2 recites “wherein the floating installation is a floating wind turbine.” As the floating installation is not positively recited, it is unclear how this limits the claimed device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-4, 6-11, 14-17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Awashima US 9,061,744.
Regarding claim 1, Awashima teaches a semi-submersible service vessel 3 for a floating installation 2, the semi-submersible service vessel comprising:
a hull;
a ballasting system 34-37 configured to selectively lower the hull to a first draft and raise the hull to a second draft, the second draft being smaller than the first draft; and
at least one submersed elongate lifting fork 7 fixed to the hull, the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork fixed to the hull configured to extend across an underside of the floating installation and engage the underside of the floating installation when the hull is raised from the first draft to the second draft; wherein
the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork is configured to lift the entire floating installation when the hull is raised from the first draft to the second draft (column 7, lines 36-50).
Please note that at least a portion of the elongate lifting fork is submersed, at least at the first draft. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to lower the lifting fork to be completely submerged in order to keep the fork and interface underwater and out of view and/or lift closer to the bottom and/or center of gravity, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
PNG
media_image1.png
255
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Awashima Figure 4C
Regarding claim 2, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork 7 is configured to exert a resultant lifting force on the underside of the floating installation towards a center of gravity of the floating installation when the hull is raised from the first draft to the second draft. Please note that as the lifting force is universally upward, it intersects the center of gravity at some point.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2- Awashima Figure 2A)]
PNG
media_image2.png
292
206
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork 7 is an integral portion of the hull (as it is attached). In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the forks integrally with the hull in order to make the bond as strong as possible, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 4, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork 7 includes a pair of lifting forks.
Regarding claim 7 as best understood, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the center of gravity of the floating installation 2 is positioned between the pair of lifting forks 7. Please note that in order to lift the installation properly, the center of gravity would have to be between the forks. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the lifting forks around the center of gravity in order to ensure a roll moment is not placed on the vessel, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 8 as best understood, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the lifting fork 7 extends across the underside of the floating installation 2 from a first side of the floating installation to a second side of the floating installation. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the forks longer in order to provide a larger engagement space and/or simplify alignment, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 9 and 10 as best understood, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork 7 comprises at least one engagement surface configured to engage at least one reciprocal surface on the underside of the floating installation. In this case, either the flat top of the forks and flat bottom of the installation, or the circumference (at elastic member 72) can be interpreted as the engagement and reciprocal surfaces.
Regarding claim 11, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the at least one engagement surface or the at least one reciprocal surface comprise a dampener 72 configured to absorb shocks between the at least one submerged elongate lifting fork 7 and the floating installation 2.
Regarding claim 14 as best understood, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the (unclaimed) floating installation 2 is tethered to the seafloor via at least one mooring line 10.
Regarding claim 15 as best understood, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the tension in the at least one mooring line 10 opposes a lifting force when the hull is raised to the second draft (see Awashima figure 4C).
Regarding claim 16, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the second draft of the hull corresponds to a threshold resultant lifting force. Please note that any draft will correspond to a lifting force, and the designation of “threshold” is arbitrary.
Regarding claim 17, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the ballasting system 34-37 is configured move the hull from the second draft to a third draft and modify a resultant lifting force (column 7, lines 36-50).
Regarding claim 19 as best understood, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that it is possible for a lifting force exerted by the at least one submerged elongate lifting fork to not cause a turning moment about a center of gravity of the floating installation. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the lifting forks around the center of gravity in order to ensure a roll moment is not placed on the installation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 20, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the ballasting system 34-37 is connectable to a one or more ballast tanks 51 mounted on the floating installation and arranged to adjust ballast in the ballast tanks (column 7, lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 21 as best understood, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Awashima also teaches that the floating installation 2 is a floating wind turbine.
Regarding claim 22, Awashima teaches a method of servicing a floating installation 2 with a semi-submersible service vessel 3, the method comprising:
positioning at least one submersed elongate lifting fork 7 fixed to a hull of the semi-submersible service vessel such that the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork extends across an underside of the floating installation;
actuating a ballasting system 34-37 to raise the hull from a first draft a second draft;
engaging the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork with the underside of the floating installation when the hull is raised from the first draft to the second draft; and
exerting a lifting force on the underside of the floating installation with the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork and lifting the entire floating installation when the hull is raised from the first draft to the second draft (column 7, lines 36-50).
Please note that at least a portion of the elongate lifting fork is submersed, at least at the first draft. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to lower the lifting fork to be completely submerged in order to keep the fork and interface underwater and out of view and/or lift closer to the bottom and/or center of gravity, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 23, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 22. Awashima also teaches increasing tension in at least one mooring line 10 tethering the floating installation to the seafloor when the hull is raised from the first draft to the second draft, as this would naturally occur.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awashima US 9,061,744.
Regarding claim 12, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Awashima also teaches that the damper 72 is elastomeric, but does not explicitly teach that the dampener is a rubber fender. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the damper from rubber in order to utilize a well-known, durable elastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 13, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Awashima does not teach that the at least one engagement surface or the at least one reciprocal surface comprise a recess for trapping water for dampening shocks between the at least one engagement surface and the at least one reciprocal surface when engaged. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the engagement and reciprocal surfaces textured or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide a better grip or allow water drainage. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. As modified, any recess would to some degree trap water.
Regarding claim 18 as best understood, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Awashima does not explicitly teach that a resultant lifting force is less than a threshold mooring line tension, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to keep the lifting force below a critical mooring line tension in order to avoid damage to the lines, since it has 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).
Claims 5, 6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awashima US 9,061,744 in view of Lindblade US 10,975,541.
Regarding claim 5, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Awashima does not teach that each of the lifting forks comprises a lateral projection extending towards another lifting fork. Lindblade teaches a service vessel 10 which comprises lifting forks 18 to engage a floating installation, wherein each of the lifting forks comprises a lateral projection 64 extending towards another lifting fork. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the lifting forks of Awashima with lateral projections as taught by Lindblade in order to more securely fasten the vessel to the installation.
PNG
media_image3.png
284
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Lindblade Figure 4
Regarding claim 6, Awashima and Lindblade teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Lindblade also teaches that the lateral projection 64 comprises a guide surface (any interior surface) arranged to guide cables or mooring lines between the pair of lifting forks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the lifting forks of Awashima with lateral projections as taught by Lindblade in order to more securely fasten the vessel to the installation.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Awashima discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. In an alternate interpretation, Awashima does not teach that the at least one submersed elongate lifting fork comprises at least one engagement surface configured to engage at least one reciprocal surface on the underside of the floating installation. Lindblade teaches a service vessel 10 which comprises lifting forks 18 to engage a floating installation, wherein the lifting fork comprises at least one engagement surface 68 configured to engage at least one reciprocal surface on the underside of the floating installation (see Lindblade figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the lifting forks of Awashima with engagement and reciprocal surfaces as taught by Lindblade in order to more securely fasten the vessel to the installation.
Regarding claim 11, Awashima and Lindblade teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. In an alternate interpretation, Awashima does not teach that the at least one engagement surface or the at least one reciprocal surface comprise a dampener configured to absorb shocks between the at least one submerged elongate lifting fork and the floating installation. Lindblade also teaches that the at least one engagement surface 68 comprises a dampener configured to absorb shocks between the at least one elongate lifting fork 18/64 and the floating installation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the lifting forks of Awashima with dampeners as taught by Lindblade in order to “absorb some of the initial impact energy” (column 4, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Awashima and Lindblade teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Lindblade also teaches that the damper is a fender, but does not teach that it is rubber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the damper from rubber in order to utilize a well-known, durable elastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 13, Awashima and Lindblade teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Lindblade also teaches that at least one engagement surface or the at least one reciprocal surface comprise a recess (between the dampeners) for trapping water for dampening shocks between the at least one engagement surface and the at least one reciprocal surface when engaged.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu US 9,725,870 teaches a service vessel that engages with a floating structure with rubber fenders.
Nakamura US 10,377,450 teaches a service vessel with forks, which lowers to engage a floating structure.
Loeken US 12,157,545 teaches a service vessel which submerges to lift floating structures.
Leerdam US 9,061,749 teaches a service vessel that submerges to pass completely underneath another vessel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615