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) 1-4, 6-8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al (EP 0317107).
In regards to Claim 1, Komatsu teaches a system capable of being used for mooring a floating object, comprising a mooring line configured for extending between said object floating in water and an anchoring device, wherein
said mooring line is made from polyoxymethylene (Example 76).
While Komatsu essentially teaches the invention as detailed, it fails to specifically teach the ratio of static stiffness to dynamic stiffness of said mooring line is in a range of 0.8 to 1. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the static stiffness and dynamic stiffness would have to have a ratio within this range, since this is a material property of polyoxymethylene, which Komatsu teaches.
In regards to Claim 2, Komatsu teaches said static stiffness and dynamic stiffness are in the range of 7 to 15 GPa insomuch as this is a material property of polyoxymethylene, which Komatsu teaches.
In regards to Claim 3, Komatsu teaches said mooring line is a polymer rope made from a plurality of polymer monofilaments laid in a spiral shape (Example 76: twine).
In regards to Claim 4, Komatsu teaches said plurality of polymer monofilaments have a diameter between 0.5 mm and 5 mm (Example 76: 1.0 mm).
In regards to Claim 6, Komatsu teaches said mooring line is a laid rope comprising strands laid in a helical manner and made from multifilament fiber yarns (Example 76: twine).
In regards to Claim 7, Komatsu teaches said mooring line has a tensile strength above 500 MPa (Example 76: 1.7 GPa).
In regards to Claim 8, Komatsu teaches said mooring line is a polymer rope sheathed by a jacket (Example 76: coated with a polyacetal copolymer).
In regards to Claim 14, the floating object is considered intended use, as it is not part of the mooring system. As such, the system of Komatsu is capable of mooring a single point mooring buoy.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al in view of Zhu et al (CN 112432856: see translation).
In regards to Claim 5, while Komatsu essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically teach the myriad forms such a mooring line could take. Zhu, however, teaches that when dealing with similar lines, it is well known that they can be either twisted or braided (Contents of the Invention, approximately Paragraph 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have braided the line of Komatsu, so as to provide a strong structure with balanced twist. Braided ropes are well known in the art, and their qualities understood. The ordinarily skilled artisan, presented with the known options, would have understood to braid the line as taught.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu et al in view of Xiaowen Zhao et al (Materials Science and Engineering A).
In regards to Claims 12 and 13, while Komatsu essentially teaches the invention as detailed above, it fails to specifically detail crystallinity and orientation of the polymer. Xiaowen, however, teaches that it is well known to highly orient polyoxymethylene to at least 60% crystallinity and 50% oriented (Section 3.2.2: 60-80%; Title “highly oriented”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the polymer of Komatsu with high orientation and high crystallinity, so as to improve tensile strength. The ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the benefits of higher tensile strength when dealing with mooring, and would have known to treat the polymer as known.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See of Record.
Specifically, at least Min et al (CN 110042498) Claims and Nakai (20140230634) Paragraph 27, Figures teach elements similar to those as currently claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shaun R Hurley whose telephone number is (571)272-4986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/SHAUN R HURLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights