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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 250 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 250 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not narrative. It has been drafted as one long run-on sentence, much like a claim, which is improper. The abstract should be narrative and consist of a series of complete sentences forming a single paragraph. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nozomi et al (JP 2007/032017, see English translated document attached as an NPL in PTO 892).
With respect to claim1, Nozomi et al disclose a method of installing a monopile 10 in a seabed 90 at an installation location, comprising: in a harbor, charging the monopile 10 on a transportation barge or vessel 2 having a main body; and an upending tool 4, 5 mounted rotatable on the main body of the vessel 2 around a horizontal axis, the monopile 10 and the upending tool being in a transport position in which the monopile rests on at least one cradle of the upending tool, the cradle 61, 62 partly surrounding the monopile around a longitudinal axis defined by the monopile (see Fig. 1); moving the transportation barge or vessel 2 from the harbor to a vicinity of the installation location; in which the monopile is vertical (see Fig. 1), partly immersed in a body of water and has a first longitudinal extremity resting on a bottom part of the upending tool 4, 5 by pulling a second longitudinal extremity of the monopile opposite the first longitudinal extremity, using a crane 3 mounted on a heavy lift vessel or on a jack-up platform, and connected to the second longitudinal extremity (see Fig. 1); disengaging the monopile 10 from the upending tool using the crane (see Fig.7), and lowering the monopile with respect to the transportation barge or vessel and hammering the monopile into the seabed (see Figs. 5-8).
With respect to claim 2, Nozomi et al disclose the monopile 10 having a steel pipe pile (see 3rd paragraph under “BEST-MODE”) comprises an external envelope around the longitudinal axis, the envelope defining an internal volume of the monopile, the method further comprising, during at least part of said rotating the monopile 10 and the upending tool 4, 5 and/or said disengaging with using jaws 61; providing a chamber containing an amount of air (this is inherently filled with an air), the chamber providing additional buoyancy to the monopile 10.
With respect to claim 4, Nozomi et al disclose said chamber extends within the internal volume, the chamber being delimited downwards by a surface of free water located
With respect to claim 11, Nozomi et al disclose an assembly comprising: a monopile 10 intended to be installed in a seabed 90 at an installation location, the monopile 10 defining a longitudinal axis and comprising an external envelope around the longitudinal axis, the envelope defining an inherent internal volume (it is a pipe shaped pile) of the monopile, the monopile 10 having a first longitudinal extremity/ top part and a second longitudinal extremity/ bottom part opposite the first longitudinal extremity, and an inherent chamber (pipe shaped pile) containing an amount of air and adapted to provide additional buoyancy to the monopile when the monopile is partly immersed in a body of water in a vertical position (see Figs. 1-8, see all paragraphs under “BEST-MODE”.)
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Vehmeijer et al (WO 2018/117846).
With respect to claim 1, Vehmeijer et al disclose a method of installing a monopile 202 in a seabed at an installation location, comprising: in a harbor, charging the monopile 202 on a transportation barge or vessel 200 having a main body; and an upending tool 50 mounted rotatable on the main body of the vessel 200 around a horizontal axis, the monopile 202 and the upending tool being in a transport position in which the monopile rests on at least one cradle of the upending tool (see Fig.14, page 17, lines 23-35, page 18, lines 1-25), the cradle 50 partly surrounding the monopile with respective jaws 57 & 58 around a longitudinal axis defined by the monopile (see Fig. 13, page 17, lines 12-35, page 18, lines 1-25); moving the transportation barge or vessel 200 from the harbor to a vicinity of the installation location; rotating the monopile 202 and the upending tool 50 together from the transport position to a discharge position, in which the monopile is vertical, partly immersed in a body of water and has a first longitudinal extremity resting on a bottom part of the upending tool 50, by pulling a second longitudinal extremity of the monopile opposite the first longitudinal extremity, using a crane 203 mounted on a heavy lift vessel or on a jack-up platform, and connected to the second longitudinal extremity (see Fig. 13); disengaging the monopile 202 from the upending tool using the crane, and lowering the monopile with respect to the transportation barge or vessel and hammering the monopile into the seabed (see Figs 1-2 & 13-14, page 10, lines 19-34, page 11, lines1-6).
With respect to claim 2, Vehmeijer et al disclose the monopile 202 comprises an external envelope around the longitudinal axis, the envelope defining an inherent internal volume of the monopile which is typically a pipe shape, the method further comprising, during at least part of said rotating the monopile 202 and the upending tool 50 and/or said disengaging with using jaws 57, 58, providing a chamber containing an amount of air (this is inherently filled with an air), the chamber providing additional buoyancy to the monopile 202.
With respect to claim 4, Vehmeijer et al disclose said chamber extends within the internal volume, the chamber being delimited downwards by a surface of free water located under a waterline of the monopile 202 (see Figs. 13-14).
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.
Claims 3, 5-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozomi et al in view of Huang et al (CN 112498622, see English translated document attached as an NPL in PTO 892).
With respect to claim 3, Nozomi et al fails to disclose the external envelope defines at least an orifice/hole intended to form a passage for at least one electric cable from the internal volume towards outside the monopile, the passage being intended to be located above the seabed once the monopile is installed, the method further comprising closing the orifice with a temporary closing member.
However, Huang et al discloses a monopile having an external envelope defining a hole 4 to form a passage for the air (see Fig.1, see 5th paragraph under “Specific Implementation examples”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the hole as taught by Huang et al for the exhaustion and ventilation of the air in the monopile.
Although Huang et al fails to specifically disclose the passage being intended to be located above the seabed once the monopile is installed, the method further comprising closing the orifice with a temporary closing member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the hole location for the electrical cable and further a cover the hole in order to utilize the hole of the monopile for multiple purpose while installation of the monopile in the seabed.
With respect to claims 5-7 and 12-14, Nozomi et al disclose the method further comprising equipping the second longitudinal extremity/bottom part of the monopile with an internal lifting tool adapted for being attached to the crane 3 and adapted for being in contact with the envelope, the internal lifting tool being adapted for forming an upper limit of the chamber (see the top of the pile in Fig. 1).
However, Nozomi et al fail to disclose an air tight joint located around the longitudinal axis and in contact with the envelope, the internal lifting tool forming an upper limit of the chamber as recited in claim 5, the internal lifting tool comprises an air vent adapted for letting part of said amount of air exit from the chamber and for raising said surface of free water with respect to said waterline as recited in claims 6 and 13, and said chamber being delimited downwards by a sacrificial membrane/ diaphragm fixed on lower end of the monopile as recited in claims 7 and 14 and the internal lifting tool comprises an air-tight joint extending around the longitudinal axis as recited in claim 12.
Huang et al diisclose a monopile 1 having a chamber 2 extending an internal volume, the chamber being delimited downwards by a sacrificial membrane/diaphragm 5, a pile lifting device 7 with a centering rigg 8 providing an air tight joint located around the longirudinal axis and the internal lifting tool 7 forming an upper limit of the chamber (see Figs. 1-2, sections (2)-(5) under “Specific implementation examples”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monopile as taught by Huang et al in order to efficiently provide the buoyancy of the monopile before installing it to the seabed. Further, with respect to the air vent for letting part of the air exit from the chamber when the monopile raised, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include another air vent hole as taught by Huong et al to the lifting tool in order to efficiently raise the monopile from the seabed when it is removed after use.
Claims 8-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozomi et al in view of Bartminn et al (WO 2022/058198, see English translated document attached as an NPL in PTO 892).
With respect claim 8-10, Nozomi et al fails to disclose an inflatable member located in the internal volume of the chamber and attached to the monopile or is delimited downwards by an inflatable plugging element located in the internal volume as recited in claims 8 and 15 and pressing against the envelope and using a system/pump for adjusting said amount of air in the chamber as recited in claims 9-10.
Bartminn et al discloses a foundation of an offshore structure comprising a (buoyant) tower-shaped foundation structure (e.g. a monopile) is used with an anchoring end which at least contact the underwater bottom surface when the foundation is installed, the monopile 402 having a buoyancy body 450 being tubular shape and inflatable via at least one suitable valve (by inherently air pump), the buoyant body 450 can be temporarily inserted or inserted into the chamber/cavity 402, or the tower-shaped foundation structure/monopile 402, 502 has a first buoyant body/ an inflatable plugging element 554 in the form of a watertight and pressure-tight chamber 554 in the upper region. At the lower end of the chamber 554, the chamber 554 can be closed by a pressure plate 556 with a closable opening 558.. (see Fig.4, 9th paragraph under “Description”, paragraph starting “Figure 4…..” and “Figure 5…...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inflatable member or plugging element as taught by Bartminn et al to the monopile in order to provide more buoyancy during the water transport of the foundation/monopile.
Relevant Prior art
WO 2024235407 A1 MONOPILE MANOEUVRING METHOD, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM
WO 2022058198 A2 FOUNDATION OF AN OFFSHORE STRUCTURE
JP 2007032017 A PILE DRIVING METHOD AND PILE DRIVING APPARATUS
US 20020159839 A1 Underwater pipe laying method and apparatus
JP S6221139 U Title Not Available
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jong-Suk (James) Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 6AM- 4PM. 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, Allana Bidder can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.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.
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875