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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 (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.
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, 3, 5 - 9, 15, 16, 22 - 28, and 30 - 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Mouchel (GB 2520512) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mouchel in view of Martin (US 5,947,641).
Regarding claim 1, Mouchel discloses a method of laying an assembly of a flexible elongate element (flexible conduit 48) and a rigid accessory (fitting 46) into water from an installation vessel (10), the method comprising: advancing the assembly with the accessory (46) and the element (48) in longitudinal series and with an elongate longitudinally-curved cradle (43) attached to the assembly, the cradle overlapping longitudinally with both the element and the accessory; and advancing the assembly and the cradle together over a longitudinally-convex guide (guiding means 26) mounted on a lay tower (tower 20) (Figs. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8) of the installation vessel, with the cradle (43) interposed between the assembly (48, 46) on an upper side of the cradle and the guide (26) on a lower side of the cradle (Figs. 3, 4 and 6 - 9; page 9, line 23 - page 10, line 27; page 12, lines 5 - 22; page 13, lines 5 - 15; page 14, lines 17 - 23). Examiner notes that the cradle as taught by Mouchel and the cradle as disclosed in the present application both have a channel in which the flexible elongate element and rigid accessory are located and an inner side that matches the curvature of a wheel and, therefore, Mouchel teaches the a first, longitudinally- convex side to the assembly opposed to a second, longitudinally-concave side extending along a length of the cradle, wherein the second side of the cradle has transversely convex curvature inasmuch as the present application does. Assuming arguendo that Mouchel does not clearly disclose the second side is longitudinally concave and transversely convex, Martin teaches the second side (side of sheave 20 adjacent surface 18) is longitudinally concave and transversely convex (Fig. 1, 3c, and 4; col. 2, line 37 - col. 3, line 44). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the shape of the cradle as taught by Martin for the shape of the cradle as disclosed by Mouchel as a design consideration within the skill of the art to securely hold the elongate element and rigid accessory in the cradle and to prevent lateral movement of the elongate element and rigid accessory in the cradle.
Regarding claim 3, Mouchel further discloses the lower side of the cradle (43) has transversely convex curvature (Figs. 3, 6a, 7a, and 9a). Assuming arguendo that Mouchel does not clearly disclose the lower side is transversely convex, Martin teaches the second side (side of sheave 20 adjacent surface 18) is transversely convex (Fig. 1, 3c, and 4; col. 2, line 37 - col. 3, line 44). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the shape of the cradle as taught by Martin for the shape of the cradle as disclosed by Mouchel as a design consideration within the skill of the art to securely hold the elongate element and rigid accessory in the cradle and to prevent lateral movement of the elongate element and rigid accessory in the cradle.
Regarding claim 5, Mouchel further discloses the upper side of the cradle (43) has a radius of transversely concave curvature that substantially matches a radius of transversely convex curvature of the accessory (48) (Figs. 3, 6a, and 7a).
Regarding claim 6, Mouchel further discloses the upper side of the cradle (43) has a radius of transversely concave curvature that is centered on an axis parallel to, or coincident with, a central longitudinal axis of the element (48) (Figs. 3, 6a, and 7a).
Regarding claim 7, Mouchel further discloses one or more supports (clamp mechanism 34) disposed on a proximal side of the accessory (46) extending between the upper side of the cradle (43) and an outer surface of the element (Figs. 2, 4a, 6, 6a, 7, 7a, and 8a; page 11, lines 4 - 13).
Regarding claim 8, Mouchel further discloses the support (34) has an end face with transversely concave curvature (Figs. 2, 4a, 6a, 7a, and 8a).
Regarding claim 9, Mouchel further discloses the support (34) extends to a height corresponding to a cross-sectional radius of the accessory (46) minus a cross-sectional radius of the element (48) (Figs. 2, 4a, 6a, 7a, and 8a).
Regarding claim 15, Mouchel further discloses restraining movement (via clamp 34) of the element (48) toward the upper side of the cradle (43) (Figs. 3, 4a, 6a, 7a, and 8a).
Regarding claim 16, Mouchel further discloses the accessory (46) is a head at an end of the element (48) (Figs. 5 - 7; page 12, lines 17 - 22; page 13, lines 5 - 15).
Regarding claim 22, Mouchel discloses an assembly for subsea installation comprising a flexible elongate element (flexible conduit 48) and a rigid accessory (fitting 46) in longitudinal series, in combination with an elongate longitudinally-curved cradle (43) attached to, and laterally offset from a longitudinal axis of, the assembly, wherein the cradle extends between and terminates at first and second longitudinally-opposed ends of the cradle, and wherein the cradle (43) extends between and overlaps longitudinally with the element (48) and the accessory (46) and presents a first, longitudinally- convex side to the assembly (48, 46) opposed to a second, longitudinally- concave side extending along a length of the cradle, wherein the second side of the cradle has transversely convex curvature (Figs. 4 and 6 - 9; page 10, lines 21 - 27; page 12, lines 17 - 22; page 13, lines 5 - 15). Examiner notes that the cradle as taught by Mouchel and the cradle as disclosed in the present application both have a channel in which the flexible elongate element and rigid accessory are located and an inner side that matches the curvature of a wheel and, therefore, Mouchel teaches the a first, longitudinally- convex side to the assembly opposed to a second, longitudinally-concave side extending along a length of the cradle, wherein the second side of the cradle has transversely convex curvature inasmuch as the present application does. Assuming arguendo that Mouchel does not clearly disclose the second side is longitudinally concave and transversely convex, Martin teaches the second side (side of sheave 20 adjacent surface 18) is longitudinally concave and transversely convex (Fig. 1, 3c, and 4; col. 2, line 37 - col. 3, line 44). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the shape of the cradle as taught by Martin for the shape of the cradle as disclosed by Mouchel as a design consideration within the skill of the art to securely hold the elongate element and rigid accessory in the cradle and to prevent lateral movement of the elongate element and rigid accessory in the cradle.
Regarding claim 23, Mouchel further discloses one or more supports (clamp mechanism 34) disposed on a proximal side of the accessory (46) that extend between the first side of the cradle (43) and an outer surface of the element (Figs. 2, 4a, 6, 6a, 7, 7a, and 8a; page 11, lines 4 - 13).
Regarding claim 24, Mouchel further discloses the support (34) has at least one end face with transversely concave curvature (Figs. 2, 4a, 6a, 7a, and 8a).
Regarding claim 25, Mouchel further discloses the support (34) extends to a height corresponding to a cross-sectional radius of the accessory (46) minus a cross-sectional radius of the element (48) (Figs. 2, 4a, 6a, 7a, and 8a).
Regarding claim 26, Mouchel further discloses the support (34) is fixed to the element (48) and is separable from the cradle (43) (Figs. 2, 3, 4a, 6, 6a, 7, 7a, and 8a; page 10, line 26 - page 11, line 13; page 12, lines 5 - 10).
Regarding claim 27, Mouchel further discloses the support (34) is fixed (via padeyes 40, 44) to the cradle (43) and is separable from the element (48) (Figs. 2, 3, 4a, 6, 6a, 7, 7a, and 8a; page 10, line 26 - page 11, line 13; page 12, lines 5 - 10; page 14, lines 17 - 23).
Regarding claim 28, Mouchel further discloses the support (34) is fixed (via padeyes 40, 44) to the cradle (43) and to the element (48) and is of variable height (Figs. 2, 3, 4a and 6a illustrate the upper end of the support has a smaller radius/height as compared to the remainder of the support) (Figs, 4a and 6a; page 10, line 26 - page 11, line - 13; page 14, lines 17 - 23).
Regarding claim 30, Mouchel further discloses the first side of the cradle (43) has a radius of transversely concave curvature that substantially matches a radius of transversely convex curvature of the accessory (48) (Figs. 3, 6a, 7a, and 8a).
Regarding claim 31, Mouchel further discloses the first side of the cradle (43) has a radius of transversely concave curvature that is centered on an axis parallel to, or coincident with, a central longitudinal axis of the element (48) (Figs. 4, 6, 7, 7a, 8, 8a, and 9).
Regarding claim 32, Mouchel further discloses the accessory (46) is a head at an end of the element (48) (Figs. 5 - 7; page 12, lines 17 - 22; page 13, lines 5 - 15).
Regarding claim 33, Mouchel further discloses equipment effecting a transition between the head (46) and the element (48) (Figs. 5 - 7; page 10, lines 21 - 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 10 - 14, 17 - 21, 34, and 35 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 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mouchel does not teach “advancing the assembly and the cradle together over a longitudinally-convex guide mounted on a lay tower” because the reel guide 26 does not advance with the pipe 48/fitting 46 assembly in any manner. Examiner has reinterpreted the apparatus as disclosed by Mouchel and the cradle 43 as taught by Mouchel has been interpreted as the cradle as recited in the claims of the present application. Examiner takes the position that the cradle 43 is attached to the frame portion 30 and rotates with the frame portion. Examiner notes that the assembly 48/46 of Mouchel is connected to the collar assembly 32 and the collar assembly is connected to the cradle 43 via padeyes 40, 44 and, therefore, the assembly and the cradle as taught by Mouchel advance together along a longitudinally-convex guide (26) (Figs. 2, 3, and 6a; page 12, lines 5 - 22; page 14, lines 17 - 23).
Applicant argues that the guide reel 26 of Mouchel is a static element that does not rotate about any axis. Examiner replies that the cradle 43 as taught by Mouchel has been interpreted as the claimed cradle and cradle rotates with frame portion 30.
Applicant argues that the sheave 20 of Martin is a static element that does not move or rotate. Examiner replies that Martin is silent regarding whether the sheave 20 of Martin is static or is rotatable. Examiner notes that Fig. 4 of Martin suggests that the sheave 20 rotates in a clockwise direction.
Applicant argues that Mouchel does not teach a cradle that is attached to the assembly because the end fitting 46 and the pipe 48 of Mouchel are not attached to the guide reel 26. Examiner replies that the apparatus as disclosed by Mouchel has been reinterpreted and the cradle 43 of Mouchel has been interpreted as the claimed cradle. Examiner takes the position that the cradle 43 is attached to the frame portion 30 and rotates with the frame portion. Examiner notes that the assembly 48/46 of Mouchel is connected to the collar assembly 32 and the collar assembly is connected to the cradle 43 via padeyes 40, 44 and, therefore, the assembly and the cradle as taught by Mouchel advance together along a longitudinally-convex guide (26) (Figs. 2, 3, and 6a; page 12, lines 5 - 22; page 14, lines 17 - 23).
Applicant argues that the guide reel 26 of Mouchel does not have the shape/form of the cradle as recited in amended claim 22. Examiner replies that cradle 43, not guide reel 26, of Mouchel has been interpreted in the claimed cradle and, as shown in Fig. 9a, the cradle 43 of Mouchel has the shape/form of the claimed cradle.
Applicant argues that Mouchel does not have the transversely convex curvature of the cradle of amended claim 22 because the base of the guide reel 26 is flat with side walls that extend vertically upwards from the flat base. Examiner replies that the cradle 43 of Mouchel, not the guide reel 26, has been interpreted as the claim cradle and Fig. 9a of Mouchel illustrates the cradle 43 has the transversely convex curvature of the cradle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights