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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-9, 11-13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2496468 A to Gunter.
Regarding claim 1, Gunter discloses a template (10) for use in installing a plurality of foundation elements relative to one another in an underwater ground formation (Page 1; Technical Field), comprising a frame (12, 22) and a plurality of guides (30) configured to guide respective foundation elements during driving them into a seabed, which guides are connected to the frame at an angular distance from each other about a centerline of the frame (Fig.1) and translatable with respect to the frame (Page 4, lines 2-11) such that distances between the respective guides and the centerline are adjustable between a first operational condition (30 translated to innermost position, Fig.6) and a second operational condition (30 translated to outermost position, Fig.6), wherein distances between the respective guides and the centerline of the frame are larger in the second operational condition than in the first operational condition (Fig.6 and 7; inner position vs. outer position).
Regarding claim 3, wherein in the first operational condition and in the second operational condition the guides are arranged rotational symmetric about the centerline of the frame (all equidistant from centerline and equidistant around the centerline).
Regarding claim 6, wherein each of the guides is translatable along a cooperating guide rail (50) which is mounted to the frame.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the guide rails are arranged such that they form at least portions of respective sides of a regular polygon (50 forms partial edge of 22).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the guide rails are part of respective substantially linear sides of the frame (50 forms partial edge of 22).
Regarding claim 9, wherein each of the guide rails only extends between a corner and a middle of a corresponding side (50 forms partial edge of 22).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the frame extends in a main plane (plane parallel to bottom surface, Fig.1) and its centerline (vertical line through central opening) extends perpendicularly to the main plane.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the guides have respective centerlines (vertical line through each sleeve 26) which are parallel to the centerline of the frame.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the template is provided with at least an actuator (releasable clamp or worm drive, Page7, lines 22-27) configured to displace at least one of the guides with respect to the frame.
Regarding claim 16, wherein each of the guides and the frame are lockable with respect to each other through a locking system (releasable clamp, Page7, lines 22-27).
Regarding claim 17, wherein each of the guides is translatable along a cooperating guide rail which is mounted to the frame (Fig.1, 6, 7), and wherein each of the guides is provided with a slider (groove or projection provided on 50, Fig.6; although not specifically talked about, can be seen in Fig.5 and 6 specifically) for sliding along the guide rail and the locking system is provided at the slider and the guide rails (releasable clamp secures 50, 52, thereby provided at the slider and the guide rails).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2496468 A to Gunter in view of US 10,494,786 B2 to Boot et al.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Gunter discloses a shape wherein the guides are equidistant from the centerline but does not disclose wherein in the first operational condition and in the second operational condition the guides are located at equiangular distance from each other and wherein the frame forms an equilateral triangle as seen from above.
Boo et al. disclose the guides are located at equiangular distance (Fig.2) from each other and wherein the frame forms an equilateral triangle as seen from above (Fig.2). Boot et al. also disclose a square, a therefore the teaching of different shapes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a triangular template as opposed to a four guide template of Gunter as taught by Boot et al. so to provide effective and ample support and also to save costs of the amount of materials used to form the template. Reducing the number of guides will make installation easy and provide a lighter template overall.
Regarding claim 14, Gunter discloses wherein each of the guides comprises a sleeve (26) but does not necessarily disclose a sleeve and a foot.
Boot et al. disclose a sleeve (5) and a foot (7), wherein under operating conditions the foot rests on the seabed and supports the sleeve, wherein the foot and the sleeve are movable with respect to each other (8) in at least a direction which is parallel to the centerline for levelling the frame with respect to the seabed when the feet are resting on the seabed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided feet which support a sleeve as taught y Boot et al. for the guide of Gunter so to enable a user to easily adjust the guide for leveling and also to allow better support of the sleeve member.
Regarding claim 15, Gunter discloses wherein the sleeves are tiltable (80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the guide with a sleeve which is adjustable relative to the foot so to provide adjustment for non-flat surfaces and different heights.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights