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 .
Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment received November 20, 2023 fails to comply with proper amendment practice under 37 C.F.R. 1.121 because applicant has introduced a new claim 12 that apparently replaces the original claim 12. Applicant is reminded that new claims must be numbered sequentially starting after the last original patent claim number. If an original claim is removed, it must be accompanied by a status identifier “canceled”, but the claim number itself cannot be reused by a new claim. Please see 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c) for additional guidance, which requires a complete listing of all previously presented claims. The status of each claim must also be provided after the specific claim numbering by the proper status identifiers. A claim which was previously canceled can be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
It is recommended that the existing claim 12 be canceled and reinstated as a new claim 24. The dependencies of claims 13 through 21 should be amended accordingly.
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 following claimed features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
a mooring arrangement (claim 12)
devices attached between the barges (claim 18)
a ramp (claim 19)
hawsers (claim 20)
mooring lines (claim 21)
anchors at the seabed (claim 21)
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 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 13-23 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.
Claims 13-21 are rendered indefinite because each claim depends from a canceled claim.
In claim 14, the limitation “the first part of the deck is next to a distal side of the floating unit, i.e., facing away from the quay-side, and the second part of the deck is next to a proximal side of the floating unit, i.e. facing towards the quay-side” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite for being confusing. Adding additional limitations after “i.e.” signals an intent to further redefine and/or narrow the immediately preceding limitation, which raises a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the redefined or narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. As a result, the claim is rendered indefinite because the resulting claim fails to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. However, replacing the word “i.e.” with the word “and” would overcome this rejection.
Re claim 15, as best understood and assuming that the claim is intended to depend from claim 12, the limitation “the barges” lacks proper antecedent basis, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Re claim 16, as best understood and assuming that the claim is intended to depend from claim 12, the limitation “wherein it comprises two cranes arranged on the deck of the outermost barges” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite. Firstly, it is not sufficiently clear as to what is being referred to by the word “it”. Is it referring to the “floating unit”? Secondly, it is not sufficiently clear if the “two cranes” are same or different from the at least one crane” set forth in the preceding claim 12. Lastly, the limitation “the outermost barges” lacks proper antecedent basis, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Re claim 17 and claim 18, as best understood and assuming that the claim is intended to depend from claim 12, the limitation “the barges” lacks proper antecedent basis, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Re claim 20 and claim 21, as best understood and assuming that the claim is intended to depend from claim 12, the limitation “the mooring” renders the claim indefinite because it is not sufficiently clear whether it is same or different from the “mooring arrangement” set forth in the preceding claim 12.
In claim 22 (line 3), the limitation “bringing elements to build the floating structure to the floating structure” (emphasis added) for being vague and confusing. Did the applicant instead intend this limitation to be “bringing elements to build the floating structure to the floating unit”?
Claim 23 is rendered indefinite because the claim depends from a canceled claim.
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 12-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kudsk (US 6682265 B1).
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) 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 having 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).
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 14, the arrangement is capable of being moored, and therefore adapted to be moored, next to a quay-side in such a manner so that the submerged first part of the deck is a distal side of the floating unit and facies away from the quay-side, and the floating second part of the deck is a proximal side of the floating unit and faces towards the quay-side.
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.
Re claim 22, the steps set forth in the method claims are considered encompassed in the assembly and subsequent use of the invention described above. Specifically, Kudsk discloses moving the 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.
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 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudsk (US 6682265 B1).
Kudsk discloses a floating arrangement for building of floating structures, wherein a floating structure assembly [10] can be moved from a land-based location to a deck of the floating unit [11] and then transported to location where it is slid off the deck by ballasting the floating unit, as described above.
Kudsk however does not expressly disclose mooring the floating unit next to a quay (claim 23); 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO Form 892, but not yet relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of the cited prior art shows a floating unit that can be ballasted to place its deck in an inclined and partly submerged position.
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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. See www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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