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 § 102
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.
Claims 12, 14-18, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kudsk (US 6682265 B1), as previously cited in PTO Form 892.
Kudsk discloses a floating fabrication arrangement for building of floating structures, comprising: floating unit [11] having a continuous deck, at least one crane [14, 35] attached to the floating unit (see Fig 13) that is capable of hoisting elements of the floating structure from a quay to the continuous deck; and a mooring arrangement [56] capable of mooring the floating unit in a floating state on a body of water (see Fig 14; col. 2, lines 8-15, and col. 9, lines 13-14). The floating unit has ballast chambers [16] capable of ballasting and de-ballasting the floating unit (see col. 2, lines 32-36) between a first building position where the floating unit floats with the deck above water in a substantially horizontal position and a second inclined launch position, in which a first part of the deck is submerged and a second part of the deck is above water (see Fig 2; col. 1, lines 42-48, and col. 6, lines 27-30). The mooring arrangement is capable of being, and therefore adapted to be, moored next to a quay-side, with the first part of the deck at a distal side of the floating unit facing away from the quay-side, and the second part of the deck at a proximal side of the floating unit facing towards the quay-side, wherein when the floating unit has reached a sufficient inclination, the floating structure is capable of sliding off the continuous deck and into the body of water on the distal side of the floating unit.
Kudsk discloses moving a floating structure assembly [10] comprising a drilling barge, any associated equipment for repair and replacement, as well as disassembled pipelines (see col. 2, lines 29-32; col. 3, lines 5-12; col. 7, lines 54-60; and col 11, lines 38-40), which is transferred from a land-based location to the deck of the floating unit for assembly (see col. 5, lines 1-3; and col 8, lines 66-67), ballasting the floating unit into an inclined position to let the floating structure slide off of the floating unit and into the water; and de-ballasting the floating unit to bring the deck completely out of the water.
Re claim 13, the floating unit is assembled from a plurality of barges [11’, 11”] that are firmly interconnected (see Fig 3 and Fig 4; col. 3, lines 44-56).
Re claim 15, the barges are interconnected with their long sides facing each other (see Fig 3 and Fig 4).
Re claim 16, the floating unit comprises two cranes [14, 35] arranged on the deck of the outermost barges (see Fig 13).
Re claim 17, the barges are connected to each other by welding (see col. 4, lines 59-65; and col. 8, lines 44-56)
Re claim 18, the barges are connected to each other by devices attached between the barges (see col. 4, lines 54-65)
Re claim 21, the mooring comprises mooring lines attached between the floating unit and one or more anchors at the seabed.
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.
Claims 19-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudsk (US 6682265 B1).
Kudsk discloses a floating arrangement, wherein a floating structure assembly [10] in the form of a drilling rig is moved from a land-based location to a deck of the floating unit [11] and then transported to an offshore site, where the floating structure assembly is launched by sliding off the deck by ballasting the floating unit, as described above.
Although Kudsk teaches launching the floating structure assembly at the offshore site, it is silent on how the land-based drilling rig is first loaded from land on to the transport vessel to be transported to such offshore site. Kudsk also fails to disclose a quay (clam 24); using hawsers for mooring the floating unit to the quay (claim 20); or providing a ramp extending between the quay and the floating unit (claim 19).
However, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to moor the floating unit next to a quay to move the floating structure assembly from the land-based location to the deck of the floating unit. Having such an arrangement would have provided a safe and easy mechanism for moving the floating structure assembly to the deck of the floating unit. It would have also been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use hawsers for mooring the floating unit to the quay and provide a ramp extending between the quay and the floating unit because such use of hawsers and ramps are notoriously old and well known in the marine art. Having such a hawser arrangement would have safely secured the floating unit to the quay to keep it steady in the rough seas, and the use of ramps would have enabled a safe and efficient transfer of personnel and equipment between the quay and the floating unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's Arguments: While acknowledging that Kudsk teaches transporting a drilling barge from a land-based location to an offshore site where it is launched by ballasting the transport vessel, Applicant has argued that the transport vessel is anchored at the offshore site, and not moored to a quay (arguments p-9). Applicant states that mooring the transport vessel of Kudsk at a quay would render the vessel unsuitable for launching the drilling barge at the offshore site. Kudsk cannot launch the drilling barge without first removing the moorings and relocating the transport vessel away from its operating site.
Applicant has further argued that claim 25 differs from Kudsk in that the claimed floating unit remains moored at a quay-side throughout the building and launching process. It would not have been obvious to moor a vessel as taught by Kudsk at a quay because doing so would defeat the purpose of Kudsk (arguments p-10).
Response: Regarding apparatus claim 24, although the claim positively recites a quay, the limitation "a mooring arrangement capable of mooring the floating unit in a floating state on a body of water" (emphasis provided) is merely a capability statement. Further, regarding apparatus claim 25, the claim does not positively recite a quay, and the limitation "a mooring arrangement capable of mooring the floating unit in a floating state on a body of water" is also recited as a capability statement. The floating unit is not permanently moored to the quay, as implied in applicant's arguments
It is also noted that mooring lines disclosed by Kudsk are not necessarily limited to mooring the floating unit (i.e., the transport vessel) exclusively at an offshore site, as being argued. Applicant is reminded that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. See MPEP 2114. Even when the prior art fails to explicitly disclose limitations recited as functional language, if the prior art (i) discloses all claimed structural limitations and (ii) the disclosed structure is capable of performing the recited function, the prior art meets the requirements of the claim. (See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429). In the present case, mooring lines disclosed by Kudsk could also be used to moor the transport vessel at the quay-side, and therefore meets the requirements of the claims.
Further, regarding claim 24, although Kudsk teaches launching the floating structure assembly (i.e., the drilling rig) at an offshore site, it is silent on how the land-based drilling rig is first loaded from land on to the transport vessel to be transported to such offshore site. However, as described above in ¶5 of this Office action, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to moor the floating unit next to a quay to be able to move the floating structure assembly from the land-based location to the deck of the floating unit. Having such an arrangement would have provided a safe and easy mechanism for moving the floating structure assembly to the deck of the floating unit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. 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.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights