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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a controller having a processor and arranged to selectively control the at least one mooring installation circuit switch,” “wherein the controller is configured to actuate the mooring installation circuit switch in response to a received condition signal from the at least one sensor and deenergize the at least one electric cable”; Claim 4 recites “wherein the controller is arranged to actuate the mooring installation circuit switch when the detected tension in the at least one electric cable exceeds a threshold”; Claim 6 recites “wherein the controller is arranged to actuate the mooring installation circuit switch when the detected tension in the at least one mooring line is outside a threshold tension range”; Claim 7 recites “the controller is configured to actuate the at least one vessel circuit breaker in response to the condition signal from the at least one sensor”; Claim 12 recites “the controller is configured to actuate the at least one mooring installation circuit switch in respect to a loss in connectivity in the at least one data connection between the vessel and the mooring installation”; Claim 15 recites “wherein the controller is arranged to selectively control the at least one mooring installation circuit switch in response to the received vessel parameter data”; and Claim 17 recites, “wherein the controller is configured to modify power supplied to the at least one mooring installation in dependence on stored vessel information and the unique vessel ID”, which are respectively directed to controlling software that is only nominally disclosed and does not comply with the written description requirement in accordance with MPEP 2161.
MPEP 2161 states: “It is “not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” (emphasis added)
For example, the Specification is entirely devoid of any algorithm, steps, procedure, or flowchart which explicitly detail the claimed procedures (i.e., in contrast to mere general/broad discussion), and is likewise absent any substantial discussion of the claimed software (e.g., rather than just functional outcomes) which would allow a skilled artisan to recognize and reproduce the invention. Therefore, “the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function are not described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed” (MPEP 2161(I)).
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 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “in respect to” and claim 17 recites “in dependence on”, which are unclear. It is unclear if the phrasing of Claim 12 is intended to be “in response to”, or some other meaning.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-17, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Ocariz et al. (US 2010/0112879), in view of Jennings et al. (US 2007/0231072).
The combination is summarized as follows:
De Ocariz discloses the general structure of a mooring installation with at least one electrical cable, as detailed below, and but is silent with respect to the explicit limitations regarding electrical circuitry and/or controller operations. Jennings teaches the use of a mooring installation circuit switch, controller, and at least one sensor, as detailed below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use electrical circuitry, such as taught by Jennings, in combination with the general structure disclosed by De Ocariz, for the expected advantage of increased user safety.
The combination, as motivated above, meets the claimed limitations as follows (mapping to Jennings unless otherwise noted):
1. A mooring installation for a vessel, the mooring installation comprising: a body (De Ocariz: 2); at least one mooring line (De Ocariz: 25) arranged to be coupled (figs. 8-9) between the mooring installation (De Ocariz: including 2) and the vessel (De Ocariz: i.e., craft); at least one electric cable (De Ocariz: 12) connected (i.e., directly or indirectly) to an external power supply (De Ocariz: i.e., public utilities via 4), the at least one electric cable (De Ocariz: 12) being arranged to electrically connect (via 23) to an electric circuit of the vessel (De Ocariz: para. 8); at least one mooring installation circuit switch (i.e., switchgear) electrically connected to the at least one electric cable and configured to deenergise power to the at least one electric cable (paras. 139, 143-145); a controller having a processor (either of 111 or 1401; paras. 143-145) and arranged to selectively control the at least one mooring installation circuit switch (para. 143-145); and at least one sensor (para. 145) arranged to detect a condition of the mooring installation (para. 145) or the vessel and send a condition signal to the controller (i.e., either of 111 or 1401); wherein the controller is configured to actuate the mooring installation circuit switch in response to a received condition signal from the at least one sensor and deenergise the at least one electric cable (inherent by paras. 139, 143-145).
2. A mooring installation according to claim 1 wherein the mooring installation circuit switch is a mooring installation circuit breaker or switchgear (i.e., switchgear).
3. A mooring installation according to claims 1, wherein the at least one sensor is a tension sensor arranged to detect the tension in the at least one electric cable (para. 145).
4. A mooring installation according to claim 3 wherein the controller is arranged to actuate the mooring installation circuit switch when the detected tension in the at least one electric cable exceeds a threshold (the system as described is capable of performing the claimed functional limitation).
5. A mooring installation according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is a tension sensor arranged to detect tension in the at least one mooring line (para. 145).
6. A mooring installation according to claim 5, wherein the controller is arranged to actuate the mooring installation circuit switch when the detected tension in the at least one mooring line is outside a tension range (the system as described is capable of performing the claimed functional limitation).
8. A mooring installation according to claim 1, wherein at least at least one data connection is arranged to transmit vessel parameter data between the mooring installation and the vessel (para. 143).
11. A mooring installation according claim 8, wherein the at least one data connection comprises a wireless data connection between the mooring buoy and the vessel (para. 143).
13. A mooring installation according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is one of more of a LIDAR, a camera, a voltage sensor, a frequency sensor, a moisture sensor, an accelerometer, GPS sensor, wind speed sensor, current sensor, humidity sensor, wave height sensor, smoke detection sensor (para. 145).
14. A mooring installation according to claim 1, wherein the external power source is an offshore power generator and at least one power generator circuit switch is electrically connected between the offshore power generator and the at least one mooring installation circuit switch (i.e., well-known, conventional, and common-place with power generator circuitry).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of the claim flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art herein.
16. A mooring installation according to claim 15, wherein the vessel parameter data comprises a unique vessel ID (inherent insomuch as signal is encrypted by para. 147).
17. A mooring installation according to claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to modify (i.e., including on/off) power supplied to the at least one mooring installation in dependence on stored vessel information and the unique vessel ID (inherent insomuch as signal is encrypted by para. 147).
22. (New) The mooring installation of claim 1, wherein the mooring installation is a mooring buoy, the body is a floating body, and the mooring buoy includes at least one anchoring line (15) connected between the floating body and the sea floor.
23. (New) The mooring installation of claim 15, wherein the mooring installation is a mooring buoy, the body is a floating body, and the mooring buoy includes at least one anchoring line (15) connected between the floating body and the sea floor.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Ocariz et al. (US 2010/0112879) and Jennings et al. (US 2007/0231072), in view of Rikoski (US 11,685,479).
The prior art does not disclose that the wireless and/or cellular connection is a broadband internet connection, as claimed. Rikoski teaches the use of a broadband internet connection in a mooring system, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use a broadband internet connection, such as taught by Rikoski, in combination with the structure of the prior art, for the expected advantage of using common, known, and/or conventional interfaces for simplicity, robustness, or improved user experience.
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Ocariz et al. (US 2010/0112879) and Jennings et al. (US 2007/0231072), in view of Giannesini et al. (US 5,226,482).
The prior art does not disclose the use of an optical fiber. Giannesini teaches the use of a multifunctional link, e.g. a linkage including electrical power lines, electrical lines for transmitting remote-control signals, and other lines for transmitting control signals by optical fibers (col. 4, lines 20-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the multifunctional line as taught by Giannesini in place of the cable of the prior art, for the expected advantage of redundancy and/or allowing high speed data transmission.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Ocariz et al. (US 2010/0112879) and Jennings et al. (US 2007/0231072), in view of Howard et al. (US 2017/0101167).
The prior art does not explicitly disclose energy consumption data of the vessel or data consumption data of the vessel. Howard teaches sensor data including current, voltage, or power that indicates power generation and/or consumption. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the power consumption data as taught by Howard in combination with the structure of the prior art, for the expected advantage of increasing user information, a known benefit in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618