DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-13, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson (US 6,971,327), in view of Jones et al. (US 4,067,285), as evidenced by Sluys (RE 31,984) and Rensch (US 3,372,518).
Regarding the combination, the prior art is summarized as follows:
Mattson discloses the general structure of a buoyant prismatic submodule (fig. 12, triangular module 21) with a reinforcement shell (24) including concrete (col. 3, lines 11-13) surrounding a core (22) including an expanded polymer foam (col. 3, lines 66-67), as explicitly mapped below, but is silent regarding attaching the submodules so as to form a hexagonal prismatic shape of the at least one floating platform module, as claimed.
However, as evidenced by Sluys, the use of concrete floats composed of a concrete shell surrounding a buoyant foam core were old and well-known, and have long been used in the construction of floating marine piers (col. 1, lines 18-21). Therefore, since such building materials were old, well-known, and in common use, an ordinary artisan would have been capable of repurposing, reorienting, or adapting the triangular submodules of Mattson as desired for a given intended use.
Further, as evidenced by Rensch, it was considered to be well-known in the art that polygons are capable of being assembled into continuous geometrical figures of indefinite width and length, including triangles, quadrangles, and regular hexagons; and that it was considered advantageous in a structure to utilize triangular base-components, since they represent the smallest building blocks usable in this way which can be grouped into square, rectangular, or hexagonal subunits (col. 1, lines 46-57). Therefore, an ordinary artisan would have known that the triangular submodules of Mattson were capable of being assembled into other configurations, such as into a regular hexagon.
All that remains from the above teachings to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to assemble the submodules of Mattson into the claimed configuration is an express intended use in the prior art, and Jones, as discussed below, teaches such an intended use.
Jones teaches a hexagonal floating structure (10) made up of a plurality of individual triangular modules (11), which advantageously is readily assembled from easily manufactured modules, is economically and rapidly made, has great strength and rigidity to withstand imposed forces while in service, is versatile, can be assembled into any desired size or shape (col. 1, lines 27-36), which can be used in any desired way (col. 2, lines 3-5).
Therefore, as evidenced by Sluys and Rensch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to assemble the submodules as disclosed by Mattson into a hexagonal configuration as taught by Jones, for the expected advantage of an economical, rapidly made floating platform which has great strength, rigidity, and versatility, for any desired use.
The combination, as motivated above, meets the claimed limitations as follows (mapping to Mattson unless otherwise noted):
1. (Currently Amended) A floating offshore structure (Jones: 10), comprising: at least one floating platform module (Jones: 10) having a threefold symmetry (i.e., hexagonal), wherein said at least one floating platform module (Jones: 10) has a hexagonal prismatic shape (Jones: col. 2, lines 29-31, fig. 1); said at least one floating platform module (Jones: 10) including a set of buoyant prismatic submodules (the set includes Mattons’s triangular modules 21, which in the combination replace Jones’ 11), each buoyant prismatic submodule (21) including: a non-hollow buoyancy-providing core (22) including an expanded polymer foam (col. 3, lines 66-67) comprising a material having a density less than the water density, and a reinforcement shell (24) including concrete (col. 3, lines 11-13) and surrounding the core of the buoyant prismatic submodule along its periphery (col. 3, lines 11-13; fig. 2) defined by a top base face (28), a bottom base face (29), and side faces (fig. 1) of said buoyant prismatic submodules (21); said buoyant prismatic submodules (21) being attached to each other along internal side faces (i.e., via 30, 32 by col. 1, lines 35-37) thereof so as to form the hexagonal prismatic shape (Jones: hexagon) of said at least one floating platform module (Jones: 10).
3. (Original) The floating offshore structure of claim 1, wherein the buoyant prismatic submodules (21) forming said at least one floating platform module (Jones: 10) have a triangular prismatic shape (fig. 12).
4. (Currently Amended) The floating offshore structure of claim 1, wherein said threefold symmetrical shape of said at least one floating platform module is a hexagonal prismatic shape (Jones: 10) after attachment of the buoyant prismatic submodules to each other (as combined, where 11 of Jones are replaced by 21 of Mattson), said at least one floating platform module includes a plane top surface formed by the top base faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules and a plane bottom surface formed by the bottom base faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules (as combined).
5. (Original) The floating offshore structure of claim 1, wherein the set of the buoyant prismatic submodules includes at least one triangular prismatic submodule (fig. 12).
6. (Original) The floating offshore structure of claim 5, wherein the set of the buoyant prismatic submodules includes six triangular prismatic submodules (Jones: fig. 1 shows multiple 11, which are each replaced in the combination by Mattson’s 21).
9. (Currently Amended) The floating offshore structure of claim 1, wherein the expanded polymer foam (22) forms a rigid inner core (i.e., 22) of each buoyant prismatic submodule (21).
10. (Currently Amended) The floating offshore structure of claim 9, wherein the expanded polymer foam forming the rigid inner core is selected from at least one of polystyrene (expanded polystyrene, col. 3, lines 66-67) and polyurethane.
Regarding Claim 11, Mattson discloses the rigid inner core (22), the expanded polymer foam (22), as mapped above, but does not disclose wherein the rigid inner core further includes, within the expanded polymer foam, at least one of recycled plastic bottles, hollow beads, plastic bags, or natural organic materials. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to form the claimed components out of the respectively claimed materials for the predictable result of optimizing the structural integrity of the components while minimizing spacing and costs, since it has been held to be well-within the general skill of a worker in the art to select from known materials on the basis of their suitability for the intended use.1
12. (Currently Amended) The floating offshore structure of claim 1, wherein said reinforcement shell (24) includes a concrete material reinforced with at least one of composite fibers (fiberglass meshes, col. 6, lines 13-24), steel rods, composite rods, a metal net (metal screen, col. 6, lines 13-24), or a grid cell structure.
13. (Currently Amended) The floating offshore structure of claim 12, wherein the grid cell structure includes a rebar cage having a plurality of rebar rods forming a framework of the rebar cage (i.e., Claim 13 is met by the art insomuch as Claim 12 is worded in the alternative).
17. (Original) The floating offshore structure of claim 1, comprising a plurality of reinforcement bars (26) mounted on a plane top surface of the floating platform module formed by the top base faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules, and on a plane bottom surface of the floating platform module formed by the bottom base faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules (col. 3, lines 11-16).
19. (Original) The floating offshore structure of claim 1, comprising a plurality of said floating platform modules (i.e., as combined).
20. (Currently Amended) The floating offshore structure of claim 1, comprising an attachment arrangement (30, 32) for any two adjacent floating platform modules, the attachment arrangement including: a plurality of flexible connecting lines (cables, col. 3, lines 35-37) extending between external side faces of the adjacent floating platform modules and having a predetermined length that allows sway motion of the modules; and damping units (gasket material, col. 3, lines 60-65) tied to the external sides of each platform module where it faces another platform, so as to avoid damage of the modules due to their mechanical impact.
Claims 2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson (US 6,971,327) and Jones et al. (US 4,067,285), as evidenced by Sluys (RE 31,984) and Rensch (US 3,372,518), and further in view of Rensch (US 3,372,518).
Regarding Claims 2 and 7-8, the prior art suggests the floating offshore structure of claim 1, wherein the buoyant prismatic submodules (21) forming said at least one floating platform module (Jones: 10); but does not suggest a rhombic prismatic shape; wherein the set of the buoyant prismatic submodules includes at least one rhombic prismatic submodule; wherein the set of the buoyant prismatic submodules includes three rhombic prismatic submodules.
Rensch teaches the known geometry of a rhombic unit (100b) constituted by two triangular plates (fig. 17); wherein the set (fig. 17) includes at least one rhombic prismatic submodule (100b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the known geometric principles as taught by Rensch in combination with the structures suggested by the prior art, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.2 Thereafter, the sole remaining limitation regards wherein the set of the buoyant prismatic submodules includes three rhombic prismatic submodules. However, it has been held that the mere duplication of known parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.3 In the instant case, the claimed multiplicity of similar parts do not appear to change the function of the claimed device, and the device of the prior art having the number of similar parts, as claimed, would not change the function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of duplicate parts, and since the claimed device having the number of parts would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson (US 6,971,327) and Jones et al. (US 4,067,285), as evidenced by Sluys (RE 31,984) and Rensch (US 3,372,518), in view of Rutzen (WO 2019121100), as evidenced by Kurfiss (US 2,430,178).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art suggests the floating offshore structure of claim 1, but Mattson does not disclose at least two floating platform modules in a stack of modules arranged one on top of another; wherein top and bottom surfaces formed by top base faces and bottom base faces of the hexagonal floating platform modules that are placed on top of each other are rougher than side faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules forming the hexagonal floating platform modules; a top reinforcement plate mounted on a plane top surface of the floating platform module formed by the top base faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules; and a bottom reinforcement plate mounted on a plane bottom surface of the floating platform module formed by the bottom base faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules.
However, Kurfiss evidences that it was old-and-well known to use stacked arrangements of floating hexagonal units which provided the expected benefit of being more resistant to deformation and increased load-bearing capacity.
Rutzen teaches at least two floating platform modules in a stack of modules arranged one on top of another (the arrangement is clearly shown in any of figs. 5B, 5C, 6B, 7B); a top reinforcement plate (i.e., top set of modules) mounted on a plane top surface of the floating platform module formed by the top base faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules (any of figs. 5-7); wherein top and bottom surfaces formed by top base faces and bottom base faces of the hexagonal floating platform modules that are placed on top of each other are rougher than side faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules forming the hexagonal floating platform modules (i.e., as clearly shown in any of figs. 5-7); and a bottom reinforcement plate (i.e., bottom set of modules) mounted on a plane bottom surface of the floating platform module formed by the bottom base faces of the buoyant prismatic submodules (any of figs. 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the stacked arrangement as taught by Rutzen in combination with the structure suggested by the prior art, for the expected benefit of a simplified construction with increased stability with more resistance to deformation or increased load-bearing capacity.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattson (US 6,971,327) and Jones et al. (US 4,067,285), as evidenced by Sluys (RE 31,984) and Rensch (US 3,372,518), in view of Culley (US 5,297,899).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art suggests the floating offshore structure of claim 1, but Mattson does not disclose comprising a set of mooring lines configured for anchoring the floating offshore structure to a seabed, and a plurality of mooring cleats embedded in the concrete of the reinforcement shell and configured to hold the mooring lines attached to the mooring cleats so as to allow turning and slippage of the mooring lines.
Culley teaches a set of mooring lines (108) configured for anchoring the floating offshore structure to a seabed, and a plurality of mooring cleats (104) embedded in the concrete of the reinforcement shell and configured to hold the mooring lines attached to the mooring cleats so as to allow turning and slippage of the mooring lines (figs. 1 and 10-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the mooring lines and cleats, as taught by Culley, in combination with the structure of Mattson, for the expected benefit of allowing the use of a known system to anchor the construction, thereby saving engineering, design, and/or manufacturing costs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
1 See discussions of MPEP 2144.07 regarding Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
2 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
3 MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B): In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Prosecution Insights