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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-22, 39-41 and 43-50 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma should be changed to a semicolon at the end of line 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12-14, 17-19, 21, 22, 39, 43-46, 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keel (GB 2,345,198) in view of Briet (FR 2,641,362).
Regarding claim 12, Keel discloses a method (e.g. claim 16), comprising: submerging a crossing bridge in water (e.g. 2, Fig. 11, claim 16), wherein the crossing bridge comprises a first passageway (e.g. 10, Fig. 10), arranged to enable a first submerged conduit to pass under the crossing bridge (e.g. 36, Fig. 11, page 8, line 35 – page 9, line 3), and a second passageway (e.g. 8, Fig. 10), arranged to enable a second submerged conduit to pass over the crossing bridge and over the first submerged conduit (e.g. page 7, lines 1-4), moving the crossing bridge into position such that the first submerged conduit passes under the crossing bridge and along the first passageway (e.g. Fig. 11, claim 16); and moving the second submerged conduit into position such that the second submerged conduit passes along the second passageway and over the first submerged conduit (e.g. claim 16). Examiner notes that the term “cable” in Keel includes umbilicals and therefore conduits (e.g. page 1, lines 8-10). Keel does not disclose that the crossing bridge comprises a shell having chambers into which water enters when the shell is submerged. Briet teaches a method, comprising: providing a crossing bridge (e.g. 1, Fig. 3), wherein the crossing bridge comprises a shell (e.g. 5-10, Fig. 4) having: one or more chambers, defining one or more voids in the shell, into which water enters (e.g. 2 and 4, Fig. 4, claim 1, last paragraph of specification), and a passageway, arranged to enable a conduit to pass over the shell (e.g. 11, Fig.’s 3 and 4, claim 1), wherein water enters the one or more chambers and air exits the one or more chambers (e.g. Fig. 3, last paragraph of specification), and moving the conduit into position such that the conduit passes along the passageway (e.g. last paragraph of specification). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the crossing bridge of Keel as a shell having chambers into which water enters as taught by Briet because such is a known form for conduit protectors that would provide the expected benefit of being much lighter when empty and very stable when filled (e.g. paragraph 7 of specification).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses after submerging the crossing bridge in water, sealing the water in the one or more chambers (e.g. Briet, last paragraph of specification).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that the crossing bridge comprises one or more valves which enable the water to enter the one or more chambers (e.g. Briet, 17, Fig. 3, last paragraph of specification), and sealing the water in the one or more chambers comprises closing the one or more valves (e.g. Briet, Fig. 3, last paragraph of specification).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that the crossing bridge is submerged in the water by dropping the crossing bridge into the water (e.g. Keel, claim 16, wherein locating the crossing bridge on the sea bed requires lowering/dropping the crossing bridge into the water).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that moving the crossing bridge into position comprises moving the crossing bridge while the crossing bridge is submerged in water (e.g. Keel, claim 16, wherein locating the crossing bridge on the sea bed requires moving the crossing bridge while the crossing bridge is submerged).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that the crossing bridge is moved by a remotely operated underwater vehicle (e.g. Keel, page 4, lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that the first passageway is a tunnel under the crossing bridge (e.g. Keel, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that at least a portion of the second passageway is substantially perpendicular to at least a portion of the first passageway (e.g. Keel, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 39, Keel discloses a crossing bridge for submersion in a liquid (e.g. 2, Fig. 11, claim 16), the crossing bridge comprising: a first passageway (e.g. 10, Fig. 10) arranged to enable a first submerged conduit to pass under the crossing bridge (e.g. 36, Fig. 11, page 8, line 35 – page 9, line 3); a second passageway, defined at least in part by a floor of the crossing bridge (e.g. 8, Fig. 10), arranged to enable a second submerged conduit to pass over the crossing bridge and over the first submerged conduit (e.g. page 7, lines 1-4). Examiner notes that the term “cable” in Keel includes umbilicals and therefore conduits (e.g. page 1, lines 8-10). Keel does not disclose that the crossing bridge comprises a shell having chambers for storing liquid and valves to enable the liquid to enter the chambers and air to exit the chambers. Briet teaches a crossing bridge (e.g. 1, Fig. 3), the crossing bridge comprising: a shell (e.g. 5-10, Fig. 4), comprising: a passageway, defined at least in part by a floor of the shell, arranged to enable a conduit to pass over the shell (e.g. 11, Fig.’s 3 and 4, claim 1); one or more chambers, defining one or more voids in the shell, for storing liquid (e.g. 2 and 4, Fig. 4, claim 1, last paragraph of specification); and wherein the crossing bridge further comprises: one or more valves configured to enable liquid to enter the one or more chambers and air to exit the one or more chambers (e.g. Briet, 17 and 18, Fig. 3, last paragraph of specification). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the crossing bridge of Keel as a shell having chambers with valves to enable liquid to enter the chambers and air to exit the chambers as taught by Briet because such is a known form for conduit protectors that would provide the expected benefit of being much lighter when empty and very stable when filled (e.g. paragraph 7 of specification).
Regarding claim 43, Keel discloses a crossing bridge for submersion in a liquid (e.g. 2, Fig. 11, claim 16), the crossing bridge comprising: a first passageway (e.g. 10, Fig. 10) arranged to enable a first submerged conduit to pass under the crossing bridge (e.g. 36, Fig. 11, page 8, line 35 – page 9, line 3); and a second passageway (e.g. 8, Fig. 10) arranged to enable a second submerged conduit to pass over the crossing bridge and over the first submerged conduit (e.g. page 7, lines 1-4). Examiner notes that the term “cable” in Keel includes umbilicals and therefore conduits (e.g. page 1, lines 8-10). Keel does not disclose that the crossing bridge comprises chambers for storing liquid and valves to enable the liquid to enter the chambers and air to exit the chambers. Briet teaches a crossing bridge (e.g. 1, Fig. 3), the crossing bridge comprising: a passageway arranged to enable a conduit to pass over the crossing bridge (e.g. 11, Fig.’s 3 and 4, claim 1); one or more chambers for storing liquid (e.g. 2 and 4, Fig. 4, claim 1, last paragraph of specification); and one or more valves configured to enable the liquid to enter the one or more chambers and air to exit the one or more chambers (e.g. Briet, 17 and 18, Fig. 3, last paragraph of specification). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the crossing bridge of Keel having chambers with valves to enable liquid to enter the chambers and air to exit the chambers as taught by Briet because such is a known form for conduit protectors that would provide the expected benefit of being much lighter when empty and very stable when filled (e.g. paragraph 7 of specification).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that the water is seawater (e.g. Keel, claim 16).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses at least one structural support configured to support the floor of the shell defining, at least in part, the second passageway (e.g. Briet, Fig. 4 wherein the floor defining the passageway is thickened and thereby includes a structural support).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that in use, at least a portion of the floor of the shell is located above the first passageway (e.g. Keel, Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that the first passageway and the second passageway are defined in the shell prior to the submerging of the crossing bridge in water (e.g. Keel, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Keel and Briet further discloses that the shell of the crossing bridge is integrally formed (e.g. Keel, Fig. 10 and Briet, Fig. 4).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keel (GB 2,345,198) and Briet (FR 2,641,362) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Olsen et al (US 2019/0011062).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Keel and Briet discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose laying rocks over the first submerged conduit, the second submerged conduit and the crossing bridge. Olsen teaches a method, comprising: submerging a bridge in water (e.g. 12, Fig. 6), wherein the crossing bridge comprises a shell (e.g. 12, Fig. 6) having a first passageway, arranged to enable a first submerged conduit to pass under the shell (e.g. 14, Fig. 6); moving the crossing bridge into position such that the first submerged conduit passes under the shell and along the first passageway (e.g. Fig. 6), and laying rocks over the first submerged conduit and the bridge (e.g. 20, Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add rocks as taught by Olsen to the submerged conduits and crossing bridge of the combination of Keel and Briet because such is a known construction in the art that would provide the expected benefit of increasing stability (e.g. Olsen, paragraph 0023).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, 40 and 47 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
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 STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights