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 § 102
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 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 15, 18, 23 - 26, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roodenburg (WO 2019/172752).
Regarding claim 15, Roodenburg discloses a method for installation of a monopile adapted to support an offshore wind turbine, wherein use is made of an installation vessel (VE) comprising: a hull (HU); a crane (CR) mounted on the hull and configured for suspending the monopile (PI); a pile holding device (pile holding system 1), the pile holding device comprising: a pile holder (PH) configured to grip the monopile when suspended from the crane; and a support assembly (support system SS) which supports the pile holder and is mounted to the hull of the vessel, wherein the support assembly is configured to move the pile holder in a horizontal plane relative to the hull, and wherein the support assembly comprises motion actuators (base carriage actuation devices 10; yoke actuation devices 20) configured for causing a movement of the pile holder relative to the hull in said horizontal plane, and a motion control unit (actuation system) for controlling the motion actuators of the support assembly; and a monitoring system (monitoring system) configured to, in a gripping phase wherein the monopile (PI) is suspended from the crane (CR) and is to be gripped by the pile holder (PH), monitor a position and/or a movement of the suspended monopile in said horizontal plane relative to the pile holder, wherein the monitoring system is configured and operated to provide signals (driving signals provided by the control system) to the motion control unit, said signals being representative of the position and/or the movement of the monopile relative to the pile holder, wherein the method comprises: monitoring with the monitoring system (sensor system sending signals to the actuation system) the position and/or the movement of the suspended monopile (monopile PI in the pile holder PH) relative to the pile holder; providing the signals (driving signals) to the motion control unit, the signals being representative of the position and/or the movement of the suspended monopile (PI) relative to the pile holder; operating under control of the motion control unit the motion actuators (10, 20) to synchronize a movement of the pile holder relative to the hull with the movement of the suspended monopile based on the provided signals; operating under control of the motion control unit the motion actuators to align a center of the pile holder with a central axis of the monopile; and the pile holder gripping the monopile holder (Figs. 1 - 6; page 9, line 22 - page 10, line 19; page 28, line 32 - page 29, line 12; page 31, line 19 - page 32, line 18; page 52, line 8 - page 56, line 16). Examiner notes that the term “synchronize” is defined as “to occur at the same time or in unison” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/synchronize). Page 29, lines 1 - 5 of Roodenburg recites “Providing the pile holding system with a motion control system configured to move the pile holder while taking into consideration this kind of data allows for a more accurate installation. Preferably motion control system is configured to use the information to actively control the pile holder while the pile is lowered towards the sea floor and/or while the pile is driven into the sea floor.”, thus explicitly teaching synchronized movement of the pile holder and the suspended monopile.
Regarding claims 18 and 28, Roodenburg further discloses suspending the monopile (PI) by the crane (CR), and wherein the gripping phase comprises operating the crane to move the monopile towards the pile holder (PH of pile holding system 1) (Fig. 1; page 52, line 35 - page 53, line 1).
Regarding claims 23 and 31, Roodenburg further discloses one or more horizontal hull mounted rails (rails R1 and R2) mounted on the hull (HU) of the vessel (VE), wherein a subframe (base carriage BC) is movable over said one or more hull mounted rails (R1, R2), wherein one or more subframe mounted rails (rack 12) are mounted on said subframe (BC) and perpendicular to the one or more hull mounted rails, wherein a support frame (yoke YO) is movable over said one or more subframe mounted rails, wherein the pile holder (PH) is mounted on the support frame, and wherein controllable motion actuators (10, 20) of the support assembly are configured to move said subframe over the one or more hull mounted rails and to move the support frame over the one or more subframe mounted rails (Figs. 2 - 4; page 55, line 21 - page 56, line 21).
Regarding claim 24, Roodenburg further discloses the hull (HU) of the vessel (VE) is in floating condition (Fig. 1; page 52, lines 17 - 27).
Regarding claim 25, Roodenburg discloses an installation vessel (VE) for installation of a monopile (PI) adapted to support an offshore wind turbine, the installation vessel comprising: a hull (HU); a crane (CR) mounted on the hull and configured for suspending the monopile; a pile holding device (1), the pile holding device comprising: a pile holder (PH) configured to grip the monopile when suspended from the crane; and a support assembly (SS) which supports the pile holder and is mounted to the hull of the vessel, wherein the support assembly is configured to move the pile holder in a horizontal plane relative to the hull, and wherein the support assembly comprises motion actuators (10, 20) configured for causing movement of the pile holder relative to the hull in said horizontal plane, and a motion control unit (actuation system) for controlling the motion actuators of the support assembly; and a monitoring system (sensor system sending signals to the actuation system) configured to, in a gripping phase wherein the monopile is suspended from the crane and is to be gripped by the pile holder, monitor a position and/or a movement of the suspended monopile (monopile PI in the pile holder PH) in said horizontal plane relative to the pile holder, wherein the monitoring system is configured to provide signals (driving signals) representative of the position and/or the movement of the monopile (PI) relative to the pile holder (PH) to the motion control unit (actuation system), wherein the motion control unit is configured to operate the motion actuators to synchronize a movement of the pile holder with a movement of the monopile relative to the hull based on the signals representative of the position and/or the movement of the monopile, and wherein the motion control unit is further configured to operate the motion actuators to align a center of the pile holder with a central axis of the monopile (Figs. 1 - 6; page 9, line 22 - page 10, line 19; page 28, line 32 - page 29, line 12; page 31, line 19 - page 32, line 18; page 52, line 8 - page 56, line 16). Examiner notes that the term “synchronize” is defined as “to occur at the same time or in unison” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/synchronize). Page 29, lines 1 - 5 of Roodenburg recites “Providing the pile holding system with a motion control system configured to move the pile holder while taking into consideration this kind of data allows for a more accurate installation. Preferably motion control system is configured to use the information to actively control the pile holder while the pile is lowered towards the sea floor and/or while the pile is driven into the sea floor.”, thus explicitly teaching synchronized movement of the pile holder and the suspended monopile.
Regarding claim 26, Roodenburg further discloses the motion control unit is configured to operate the motion actuators to first synchronize a movement of the pile holder with the movement of the monopile in an x-direction, and subsequently to operate the motion actuators to synchronize a movement of the pile holder with the movement of the monopile in a y-direction, wherein the y- direction is perpendicular to the x-direction (Fig. 2; page 55, line 12 - page 56, line 8).
Regarding claim 32, Roodenburg discloses a method for installation of a monopile (PI) adapted to support an offshore wind turbine, wherein use is made of an installation vessel (VE) comprising: a hull (HU); a crane (CR) mounted on the hull; and a motion compensating pile holding device (1), the device comprising: a motion compensating support assembly (SS) mounted to the hull of the vessel; and a pile holder (PH) that is supported by the support assembly, wherein the motion compensating support assembly comprises controllable motion actuators (10, 20); and an associated motion control unit (actuation system) configured for position control of the monopile during landing of the monopile on a seabed and/or for control of verticality of the monopile during driving of the monopile into a seabed so as to compensate for vessel motion, wherein the method comprises: operating the crane (CR) so as to bring the monopile (PI) in a suspended and upended orientation; a phase of bringing the suspended monopile into engagement with the pile holder (PH); lowering the monopile by means of the crane whilst being guided by the pile holder so that the monopile is landed on the seabed; and driving the monopile deeper into the seabed involving the use of pile driving equipment (pile driving mechanism PDM), wherein, during the phase of bringing the suspended monopile into engagement with the pile holder, motion of the monopile is monitored by a monitoring system (sensor system sending signals to the actuation system) providing signals representative of actual position and/or motion of the monopile, and the signals are supplied to the motion control unit (actuation system) of the motion compensating pile holding device, which governs, during the phase of bringing the suspended monopile into engagement with the pile holder, the controllable motion actuators (10, 20) in order to actively position the pile holder with the suspended monopile (Figs. 1 - 6; page 9, line 22 - page 10, line 19; page 28, line 32 - page 29, line 12; page 31, line 19 - page 32, line 18; page 52, line 8 - page 56, line 16). Examiner refers to page 29, lines 1 - 5 of Roodenburg which recites “Providing the pile holding system with a motion control system configured to move the pile holder while taking into consideration this kind of data (the orientation of the pile held by the pile holder; page 27, lines 24 - 28) allows for a more accurate installation. Preferably motion control system is configured to use the information to actively control the pile holder while the pile is lowered towards the sea floor and/or while the pile is driven into the sea floor.” Therefore, Roodenburg explicitly teaches using monitoring signals to actively position the holder to meet a moving pile in mid-air (while the pile is lowered towards the sea floor).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg. Roodenburg further discloses a movement of the pile holder with the movement of the monopile in an x-direction; and a movement of the pile holder with the movement of the monopile in an y-direction, wherein a y- direction is perpendicular to the x-direction (Fig. 2; page 55, line 12 - page 56, line 8). Roodenburg fails to disclose first moving the pile holder and monopile in an x-direction and then moving the pile holder and the monopile in the y-direction. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 16 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 17, 27, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg in view of Rabaut et al. (US 2021/0123203). Roodenburg discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except one or more additional sensors providing actual data related to one or more of: vessel motion, vessel position, operation of a dynamic positioning system, vessel stability, and operation of a ballast system of the vessel, and wherein the method further comprises providing signals from the one or more additional sensors to the motion control unit. Rabaut teaches operation of a dynamic positioning (DP) system for controlling the position of a vessel (paragraphs 0009, 0046, 0048, 0079, 0111, and claim 8). 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 modified the method as disclosed above with the operation of a dynamic positioning system as taught by Rabaut for controlling the position of a floating vessel. Although Rabaut fails to explicitly teach one or more additional sensors providing actual data related to the dynamic positioning system and providing signals from the one or more additional sensors to the motion control unit, the apparatus as taught by Rabaut would obviously include one or more additional sensors providing signals from the one or more additional sensors to the motion control unit of the vessel for the DP system to perform the task of positioning the floating vessel in a desired location. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claims 17 and 33 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 19 - 22, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg in view of Lee (KR 20200056171).
Regarding claims 19, 20, and 29, Roodenburg discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except one or more distance sensors measuring a distance and/or a position of the monopile relative to the pile holder. Lee teaches one or more distance sensors (320-1, 320-2, 320-3) measuring a distance and/or a position of the monopile (pile 20) relative to the pile holder (guide means 300) (Figs. 1 and 4; paragraphs 0014, 0044, 0082 - 0089, and 0221) to allow the guide work equipment to be used on guide work materials, such as piles, of different diameters. 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 modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the distance sensors as taught by Lee to allow the pile holding device to be used on monopiles of different diameters. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 20 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 21 and 30, Roodenburg discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the monitoring system comprises two or more distance sensors which are each provided on the pile holder, wherein the distance sensors are provided separated from each other on the pile holder, and wherein two or more of the distance sensors have overlapping field of views. Lee teaches the monitoring system comprises two or more distance sensors (320-1, 320-2, 320-3) which are each provided on the pile holder (300), wherein the distance sensors are provided separated from each other on the pile holder, and wherein two or more of the distance sensors have overlapping field of views (Fig. 4; paragraphs 0014, 0044, 0082 - 0089, and 0221) to allow the guide work equipment to be used on guide work materials, such as piles, of different diameters. 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 modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the distance sensors as taught by Lee to allow the pile holding device to be used on monopiles of different diameters.
Regarding claim 22, Roodenburg fails to disclose the field of view of each of the distance sensors comprises the center of the pile holder. Lee teaches the field of view of each of the distance sensors (320-1, 320-2, 320-3) comprises the center of the pile holder (300) (Fig. 4) to allow the guide work equipment to be used on guide work materials, such as piles, of different diameters. 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 modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the distance sensors as taught by Lee to allow the pile holding device to be used on monopiles of different diameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Roodenburg does not teach monitoring the movement of the suspended monopile to synchronize the pile holder’s motion with the monopile’s movement. Examiner replies that the term “synchronize” is defined as “to occur at the same time or in unison” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/synchronize). Page 29, lines 1 - 5 of Roodenburg recites “Providing the pile holding system with a motion control system configured to move the pile holder while taking into consideration this kind of data allows for a more accurate installation. Preferably motion control system is configured to use the information to actively control the pile holder while the pile is lowered towards the sea floor and/or while the pile is driven into the sea floor.”, thus explicitly teaching synchronized movement of the pile holder and the suspended monopile. Additionally, page 9, lines 28 - 30 explicitly teaches a control system configured to move the pile away from the vessel at the same time (in other words, in synchronization with) as movement of the pile holder based on the position and orientation of the pile as determined by the monitoring system (see also, page 10, lines 14 - 19).
Applicant argues that since the cited passages of Roodenburg merely teach the availability of a monopile installation vessel including a pile holder, as well as a monitor and control system provided and used to move the pile holder, Roodenburg fails to teach or suggest the step of synchronization of movement of the pile holder and suspended monopile. Examiner replies that page 29, lines 1 - 5 of Roodenburg recites “Providing the pile holding system with a motion control system configured to move the pile holder while taking into consideration this kind of data allows for a more accurate installation. Preferably motion control system is configured to use the information to actively control the pile holder while the pile is lowered towards the sea floor and/or while the pile is driven into the sea floor.”, thus explicitly teaching synchronized movement of the pile holder and the suspended monopile. Additionally, page 9, lines 28 - 30 explicitly teaches a control system configured to move the pile away from the vessel at the same time (in other words, in synchronization with) as movement of the pile holder based on the position and orientation of the pile as determined by the monitoring system (see also, page 10, lines 14 - 19).
Applicant argues that Roodenburg fails to teach a monitoring system configured to track the real-time, dynamic pendulum motion of a suspended pile before it is gripped and, therefore, Roodenburg’s motion control unit cannot be “configured to” synchronize with a movement it does not track. Examiner replies that Roodenburg’s motion control unit tracks the position and/or orientation of the pile while the pile is being lowered to the sea floor (page 29, lines 1 - 5), thus teaching a monitoring system configured to track the real-time, dynamic motion of a suspended pile.
Applicant requests that Examiner identify the specific structural elements that function as a monitoring system for a moving, suspended pile and provide evidence that Roodenburg’s control logic is specifically configured to synchronize holder motion with a dynamic object, rather than simply moving a static coordinate or correcting a tilted driven pile. Examiner replies that page 29, lines 1 - 5 of Roodenburg recites “Providing the pile holding system with a motion control system configured to move the pile holder while taking into consideration this kind of data allows for a more accurate installation. Preferably motion control system is configured to use the information to actively control the pile holder while the pile is lowered towards the sea floor and/or while the pile is driven into the sea floor.”, thus explicitly teaching synchronized movement of the pile holder and the suspended monopile. Additionally, page 9, lines 28 - 30 explicitly teaches a control system configured to move the pile away from the vessel at the same time (in other words, in synchronization with) as movement of the pile holder based on the position and orientation of the pile as determined by the monitoring system (see also, page 10, lines 14 - 19). Examiner notes that Roodenburg teaches a motion control system comprising cameras and lasers to monitor the orientation of the pile (page 27, lines 24 - 28).
Applicant argues that Roodenburg does not teach using monitoring signals to actively position the holder to meet a moving pile mid-air. Examiner refers to page 29, lines 1 - 5 of Roodenburg which recites “Providing the pile holding system with a motion control system configured to move the pile holder while taking into consideration this kind of data (the orientation of the pile held by the pile holder; page 27, lines 24 - 28) allows for a more accurate installation. Preferably motion control system is configured to use the information to actively control the pile holder while the pile is lowered towards the sea floor and/or while the pile is driven into the sea floor.” Therefore, Roodenburg explicitly teaches using monitoring signals to actively position the holder to meet a moving pile in mid-air (while the pile is lowered towards the sea floor).
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
3/19/2026
Prosecution Insights