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 § 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.
Claim(s) 24-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arntz (WO 2020/207903) alone.
With regards to claim 24, Arntz discloses a method for installation of an offshore wind turbine foundation monopile (1) in a seabed (page 9, line 1), the monopile having a foot end (4), a top end (3), and a longitudinal axis (figure 1), the method comprising: supporting the monopile in an upright position with the foot end on the sea floor; and revolving the monopile about the longitudinal axis, such that the monopile makes multiple revolutions while being driven into the seabed (page 9, line 15-29; figures 1-11). Amtz discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Amtz does not explicitly teach wherein the monopile has a diameter of at least 8 meter and has a length of at least 30 meters. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify the pile dimensions as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/dimensions of a component. A change in size/dimensions is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
As to claim 25, Arntz discloses wherein the method further comprises using gravitational forces to press the monopile into the soil by providing a weight at the top end of the monopile masses and/or wherein the method further comprises vibrating the monopile in an axial direction (abstract; “wherein at the upper end or near or at the open lower end (4) vibration means are present”; page 4, lines 31-32; “Vibration means making use of an eccentric mass are known”).
As to claim 26, Arntz discloses wherein the method further comprises fluidizing the soil by injecting water into the soil at the foot end of the monopile, and allowing the fluidized soil to flow away from below the monopile (figure 2; page 12, lines 13-25; “means (6) to discharge a fluid into the interior space (20) of the tubular housing and means (7) to discharge a fluid from the lower end (4) of the tubular housing (2) in a direction which has a downward directional component.”).
As to claim 27, Arntz discloses wherein the method further comprises vibrating the monopile (eccentric masses 45) in a circumferential direction (figure 8-9).
As to claim 28, Arntz discloses wherein the frequency of the vibration is between 10 and 500 Hz (page 9, line 26; “The frequency of the vibration means is suitably between 10 and 200 Hz.”).
As to claim 29, Arntz discloses wherein the vibration device engages an outside surface of the foundation monopile (page 4, lines 14-15) and/or is mounted at the top end onto the monopile (abstract; “wherein at the upper end or near or at the open lower end (4) vibration means are present”).
As to claim 30, Arntz discloses wherein there are multiple vibration devices (5), and the multiple vibration devices are tuned such that they generate an interference pattern comprising peaks that generate a net circumferential displacement in a revolution direction, and thus revolve the monopile about the longitudinal axis of the monopile (figures 1-2 and 9; page 5, lines 6-22; “synchronized their motion”).
As to claim 31, Arntz discloses wherein the vibration is achieved by using a number of individual vibration devices each comprising a hydraulic motor connected to a rotating eccentric mass, and wherein the axis of rotation of the eccentric masses are directed in a radial direction with respect to the monopile, to enable the vibration devices to generate a circumferentially directed vibration force (page 5, lines 6-22; “The rotating eccentric masses are suitably connected to one or more electric, pneumatic or hydraulic motors. The axis of rotation of the eccentric masses are suitably directed in a radial direction with respect to the ring shaped housing.”).
Claim(s) 32-33 and 38-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arntz (WO 2020/207903) in view of Liu et al. (CN 113513039).
As to claim 32, 37 and 42, Arntz discloses an offshore wind turbine foundation monopile (1), the monopile having a foot end (4), a top end (3), and a longitudinal axis (figure 1), wherein the monopile is configured to be revolved about the longitudinal axis of the monopile during installation of the monopile in the seabed (figure 9); and a monopile revolver for revolving the monopile about the central axis during installation of the monopile (ring shaped element 17 includes vibrating device 8 for rotation of pile, figures 1-4). Arntz discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Arntz is silent about wherein the monopile is at an inside surface and/or an outside surface provided with one or more helical ribs to provide the respective inside and/or outside surface of the monopile with a threading to enable the monopile to be screwed into the seabed such that the monopile makes multiple revolutions while being driven into the seabed. Liu et al. teaches a similar monopile including an outside surface provided with one or more helical ribs to provide the monopile with a threading to enable the monopile to be screwed into the seabed such that the monopile makes multiple revolutions while being driven into the seabed and a revolver is inherent (figure 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the monopile of Arntz to include outside helical ribs as taught by Liu et al., since it is well known that helical or threaded piles provide a resistance from uplift.
Furhtermore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify the pile dimensions as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/dimensions of a component. A change in size/dimensions is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
As to claim 33, Arntz discloses wherein the monopile is provided with seats for one or more vibration devices (8) at the top end of the monopile (1) (figures 1-4; Abstract “wherein at the upper end or near or at the open lower end (4) vibration means are present”; see figure 8, clamp 46 seat on the bottom edge similar configuration can be achieved at the upper end).
As to claim 38, Arntz discloses wherein the monopile revolver (17) comprises multiple vibration devices (8) to be mounted on the top end of the monopile or one or more revolvers configured to engage an outside surface of the monopile and enact a circumferential pile revolving force on the outside surface (abstract; page 4, lines 14-15).
As to claim 39, Arntz discloses wherein the installation system further comprises: a pile drive for generating an axial pile driving force (ring 13 with vibrating means 8 generates an axial pile driving force; figures 1-11).
As top claim 40, Arntz discloses wherein the installation system further comprises a monopile (1), the monopile having a foot end (4), a top end (3), and a longitudinal axis (figure 1), wherein the monopile is configured to be revolved about the longitudinal axis of the monopile during installation of the monopile in the seabed, wherein: the monopile is provided with one or more fluidisation conduits (28) extending in the longitudinal direction of the monopile for channeling fluidisation fluid to the foot end of the monopile and with multiple fluidisation fluid nozzles (6, 7, 16, 23) along the circumference of the foot end of the monopile for dispensing jets of fluidisation fluid at the foot end of the monopile during installation of the monopile; and/or the monopile is configured to be engaged by a pile revolver (17 or 39) (figure 1-2 and 8-9).
As to claim 41, Arntz discloses a vessel (inherent from figure 8, umbilical 42 are known to be connected to a vessel located at the water surface) provided with the system according to claim 37 (see rejection of claim 37 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35-36 is 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, see pages 7-13, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to claims 35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claim 35 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24-33 and 37-42 have been considered but are moot because the new ground necessitated by amendments.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the teaching of vibrating the tubular housing in Arntz cannot be equivalent to the claimed feature of "revolving the monopile about the longitudinal axis, such that the monopile makes multiple revolutions while being driven into the seabed" as recited in claim 24.” – Examiner respectfully disagrees. Arntz teaches “The vibration means may be positioned to effect an axial vibration, a tangential or torsional vibration and/or a radial vibration.” (see page 4 line 31 to page 5 line 5) and therefore, the pile is capable of rotation with torsional vibrations.
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 CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights