DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits of application 18865086.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim sentence does not end in a period [.] it ends with [;]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a force" it should be “the force” since it depends from claim 2 which already states “a force”, it makes it unclear if there is more than one force. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “in particular the movable arms” which renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Lee WO 2011019120.
Claim 1, Lee discloses a mooring device [100]for mooring a ship [1], the mooring device having a moored state, in which it engages the ship, and a non-moored state in which it does not engage the ship, the mooring device comprising:- a base [125];- a movable arm [120], fixed with respect to the base with a first end [121], a second [123d], opposite end of the arm being movable with respect to the base between a retracted position, in which the second end is relatively close to the first end and an extended position, in which the second end is relatively far from the first end;- a connector [110] carried by the arm [120], the connector having an engaged state, in which it engages an object for mooring, such as the hull of a ship [fig. 3, 1], and a disengaged state, in which it does not engage the object; and a distance keeping system [123b/123c] configured for keeping a minimum and non- zero distance between the base and the object engaged by the connector [110], wherein the distance keeping system is integrated with the movable arm [120]. See figs. 1-3
Claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the mooring device further comprises means for providing a force [actuators 122/124/126] in an along ships direction between the base [125] and the connector [110]. See figs. 1-3
Claim 3, Lee discloses wherein the means for providing a force in the along ships direction comprise an actuator [121a] for rotation the arm around a vertical axis. See figs. 1-3
Claim 4, Lee discloses wherein the mooring device comprises: a winch [140]; and a tensile element [130] having a first end engaged by the winch and a second, opposite end fixed with respect to the second end of the arm [120] and/or the connector [110]. See figs 1-3
Claim 5, Lee discloses wherein the distance keeping system [123b/123c] comprises at least one actuator [122/124/126] for moving the movable arm [120]. See figs 1-3.
Claim 6, Lee discloses a mooring device comprising a such actuator [126] having one end fixed with respect to the base [125], and another, opposite end fixed with respect to the arm [120], said actuator being arranged for providing a pushing force between the base [125] and the arm [120]. See figs. 1-3.
Claim 7, Lee discloses wherein said actuator [122/124/126/123b/123c] is a hydraulic actuator. See figs. 1-3
Claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the distance keeping system comprises: a controller operatively connected to the at least one actuator [122/124/126/123b/123c] for controlling the at least one actuator, wherein in the moored state, the controller is configured to control the arm [120] by controlling the at least one actuator, in order to maintain a distance between the first and second end of the arm. Though not explicitly stated the controller is inherent to control the multiple actuators to move the robotic arm.
Claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the winch [140] is an automatic winch [ via motor 141] , which is configured to keep a tension on the tensile element [130] at least in the moored state. See fig. 1.
Claim 10, Lee discloses wherein the controller [inherent] is further operatively connected to: the winch [140] for controlling the winch; and/or the means for providing the along ships direction, for controlling said means.
Claim 11, Lee discloses the mooring device comprising a position determination system [inherent; attachment unit 110 in the hull of the vessel to be docked or mooring Select the optimal position to attach (S12), the robot arm 120 to move the attachment unit 110 to the attachment position of the hull (S13)], operatively connected to the controller [inherent], configured for determining a position of the second end of the arm and communicating to the controller said determined position.
Claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the controller [inherent] is configured to control the winch [140] and/or the means for providing force in the along ships force on the basis of the determined position of the arm [120]. See figs 1-3
Claim 13, Lee discloses wherein the controller [inherent] is configured to control the at least one actuator [122/124/126/123b/123b] on the basis of the determined position of the arm [120]. See figs. 1-3
Claim 14, Lee discloses wherein the tensile element [130] is led to an engaging position fixed with respect to the base [125] at a distance from the arm [120]. See figs. 1-3
Claim 16, Lee discloses wherein the winch [140] is arranged closer to the arm [120] than the engaging position. See fig. 1-2.
Claim 17, Lee discloses wherein the connector [110] comprises a latching element [111] for latching onto a surface in the engaged state, for example a vacuum pad or a magnetic mooring pad. See fig. 1, the reference states “According to the step S20 of attaching the attachment unit to the hull, the attachment unit 110 is vacuum-adsorbed to the hull 1 by vacuum evacuation, and is attached by vacuum evacuation through the vacuum hole 111a of the attachment pad 111. The unit 110 is to be adsorbed to the hull (1). On the other hand, the attachment unit 110 may be attached to the hull 1 by the magnetic force generated by the power supply in the case of the magnetic attachment method instead of the vacuum suction method.”
Claim 18, Lee discloses wherein the arm [120] is rotatable with respect to the base [125] around two mutually perpendicular axes which are both perpendicular to a local axis of the arm at its first end. See figs. 1-3
Claim 19, Lee discloses wherein the distance keeping system comprises actuators [123b/123c] configured for actuating rotation of the arm [120] around said two mutually perpendicular axes [this is integrally accomplished with actuators 122/124], wherein optionally the actuators are operatively connected to the controller [inherent]. See fig. 1
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.
Claim(s) 15, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., and further in view of MONTGOMERY WO 2005097590.
Claim 15, Lee discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose the mooring device has a pulley at the engaging position. Montgomery discloses a mooring device that uses pulleys [132 fig. 14]. Thus, it 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 to have modified Lee with Montgomery to use said pulleys at the engaging position as a means to tension a mooring line.
Claim 20-21, Lee discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose the mooring system, comprising at least two mooring devices according to claim 1, the bases of which are fixed with respect to each other, or which share a base, and tensile elements of the at least two mooring systems are led to engaging positions on opposite sides of the arms.
Montgomery discloses a base attached to the wharf [12] with 2 mooring devices [4] attached to the base; and tensile elements [4] of the at least two mooring systems are led to engaging positions on opposite sides of the arms [27] [see fig. 3-5]. Thus, it 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 to have modified Lee with Montgomery to have a plurality of mooring devices connected to a base for redundancy in case one fails to work.
Claim 22, Lee discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose wherein the at least two mooring devices, in particular the movable arms thereof, are operatively connected for being controlled cooperatively. Montgomery discloses the above limitation in figs. 3-5. Thus, it 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 to have modified Lee with Montgomery to have the movable arms operatively connected for being controlled cooperatively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F.
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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights