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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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.
Claim 10, 26-30,41,42 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.
Claim 10 line 2, “platform t block” should be –platform to block—
Claim 26 line 2 calls for “a docking formation”; claim 24 line 3 calls for “a docking formation”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
Claim 41 calls for “a first sheave” and “a second sheave”; claim 40 calls for “sheave”; it is unclear if and how they are related.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 42 recites the broad recitation elongate element, and the claim also recites pipeline which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 24-40,42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO document (WO 93/16267).
WO discloses a system for initiating laying of an elongate element (2) on the seabed, the system comprising a subsea anchor (4,10,20, page 7,8,11 “sea-floor installation”) that supports: a docking formation (5) for engagement with an end structure (2,3) of the element; a damper (winch, 22, pages 11,13, Figs. 4,5,6) ; and a wire (1) for coupling the end structure of the element to the damper, the wire being attached to the damper such that the damper is interposed between the wire and the anchor.
Re claim 25, wherein the anchor also supports a landing platform (7,10, page 8,9) for the end structure of the element, the platform defining an elongate running surface extending in a radial direction with respect to the anchor for supporting reciprocal movement of the end structure toward and away from the anchor.
Re claim 26, further comprising a docking formation (5,6) communicating with the platform and engageable with the end structure.
Re claim 27, wherein the docking formation is offset toward an inboard end of the platform (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 28, wherein the docking formation (5,6) is at a level beneath a level of the platform (7,10, see Fig. 1)
Re claim 29, further comprising a movable or removable barrier (9, page 9) for temporarily blocking engagement of the end structure with the docking formation when the end structure is aligned with the docking formation.
Re claim 30 , wherein the barrier is a part of the running surface of the platform (7,9,10, pages 8,9) .
Re claim 31, wherein the damper comprises at least one cylinder (22, page 13, Figs. 4,5,6).
Re claim 32, wherein the at least one cylinder is elongate along a substantially horizontal axis (see Figs. 4,5,6, this is the case since the particular orientation is based on one’s interpretation).
Re claim 33, wherein the damper comprises a passive heave compensator (22, page 13, Figs. 4,5,6).
Re claim 34, wherein the damper (22, see Figs. 4,5,6) lies on top of the anchor.
Re claim 35, wherein the damper is removably supported by an open-topped cradle on the anchor (see Figs. 4-7).
Re claim 36, wherein the wire (1) is movable around a guide (21) supported by the anchor and is divided by the guide into first and second legs that extend from the guide in respective directions, the second of those legs extending from the guide to the damper (22).
Re claim 37, wherein the anchor also supports a landing platform (7,10, page 8,9) for the end structure of the element, the platform defining an elongate running surface extending in a radial direction with respect to the anchor for supporting reciprocal movement of the end structure toward and away from the anchor, and wherein the guide (21) is opposed to the platform about the anchor.
Re claim 38, wherein the second leg of the wire is aligned coaxially with a stroke axis of the damper (see Figs. 4,5,6).
Re claim 39, wherein the anchor also supports a landing platform (7,10, page 8,9) for the end structure of the element, the platform defining an elongate running surface extending in a radial direction with respect to the anchor for supporting reciprocal movement of the end structure toward and away from the anchor, and wherein the stroke axis diverges from the radial direction of the elongate running surface moving away from the anchor.
Re claim 40, wherein the guide comprises at least one roller or sheave (21).
Re claim 42, with an elongate element such as a pipeline (2), an end structure (3) of the element being coupled to the damper (22) via the wire (1).
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) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘267 in view of Baugh (US 3973625).
WO document ‘267 discloses a first sheave (21) turning on a substantially horizontal axis and the first leg of the wire extending from the first sheave for connection to the end structure (2,3) of the element. WO document ‘267 discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, WO document ‘267 lacks a second sheave turning on a substantially vertical axis and the second leg of the wire extending from the second sheave to the damper. Baugh teaches a second sheave (see Figs. 3, 10, 12-14) turning on a substantially vertical axis and the second leg of the wire extending from the second sheave to the damper. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO document ‘267 to include a second sheave with the wire extending from the second sheave to a damper as taught by Baugh since such a modification make lifting heavy loads easier by multiplying your lifting power.
Claim(s) 1-9,11-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘267
With regards to claims 1-23, the recited method steps are considered obvious in view of the installation of pipeline (2) according to WO document ‘267
The method of initiating laying of an elongate element (2) on the seabed, the
method comprising: coupling an end structure (2,3) at a lower end of the element to a subsea anchor (4,10,20, page 7,8,11 “sea-floor installation”) via a damper (22, Figs. 4-6) interposed between the element and the anchor; by action of the damper (page 7, 8.10,12,13), permitting and damping reciprocal motion of the coupled end structure relative to the anchor; docking (5,6, 7,10, pages 8,9) the end structure with the anchor; and laying an initial portion (5,6) of the element, adjoining the anchor, on the seabed.
Re claim 2, comprising landing (5,6) the end structure on a platform (7,10, pages 8,9) and supporting the end structure on the platform during said reciprocal motion.
Re claim 3, also comprising permitting and damping said reciprocal motion before landing the end structure on the platform (page 7, Fig. 1).
Re claim 4, comprising docking the end structure by moving (page 8, 9) the end structure along the platform into engagement with a docking formation.
Re claim 5, comprising engaging the end structure with the docking formation by moving the end structure along the platform into alignment with the docking formation (5,6,7,10, pages 7,8,9).
Re claim 6, comprising moving the element to push the end structure along the platform into engagement with the docking formation (5,6,7,10, pages 7,8,9).
Re claim 7, comprising initially blocking engagement (9, page 9) of the end structure with the docking formation when the end structure is aligned with the docking formation.
Re claim 8, comprising subsequently unblocking (when members 5,6,8 are positioned in the upper position) a path from the platform to the docking formation to allow engagement of the end structure with the docking formation (9, page 9).
Re claim 9, comprising temporarily using a portion of the platform (7) to block engagement of the end structure with the docking formation (when members 5,6,8 are positioned in the lowered position without pipeline 2)
Re claim 11, comprising lowering the end structure from a level of the platform into engagement with the docking formation beneath that level (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 12, comprising pivoting (5,6, page 7, 8) the docked end structure relative to the anchor when laying the initial portion of the element on the seabed.
Re claim 13, further comprising locking (7,10,11 and Fig. 1) the docked end structure relative to the anchor.
Re claim 14, comprising: landing the end structure on a platform and supporting the end structure on the platform during said reciprocal motion (page 8,9);
docking the end structure by landing the end structure on the platform; and
after laying the initial portion of the element on the seabed, engaging the end
structure with a locking (7, Fig. 1, page 7 )element that acts between the end structure and the anchor.
Re claim 15, comprising: measuring the position of the end structure on the platform after laying the initial portion of the element on the seabed; and engaging the end structure with the locking element configured to suit the measured position of the end structure (page 8).
Re claim 16, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify WO document ‘267 comprising preliminarily lowering the damper through water to the preinstalled anchor and engaging the damper with the anchor (22, Figs. 4,5,6);
re claim 17, followed by disengaging and lifting the damper through water from the anchor; since such modifications are conventional assembly and disassembly steps.
Re claim 18, comprising coupling the end structure to the damper (22) via a wire (1) that moves around a guide (21) in response to said reciprocal motion and is divided by the guide into a first leg extending from the guide to the end structure and a second leg extending from the guide to the damper, those legs moving in mutually opposed directions (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 19, wherein the damper acts over a damping stroke in response to said reciprocal motion transmitted from the end structure by the wire (Figs. 4,5,6; pages 7,13).
Re claim 20, wherein the damping stroke is along an axis that is aligned coaxially with the second leg of the wire (22, Figs. 1,4,5,6).
Re claim 21, comprising laying the initial portion of the element on the seabed in an initial lay direction that diverges from the axis of the damping stroke away from the anchor (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 22, comprising reducing inclination of the first leg of the wire (lowering via member 8) relative to a horizontal plane after coupling the end structure to the damper and before docking the end structure with the anchor, and further reducing the inclination of the first leg of the wire relative to the horizontal plane when laying the initial portion of the element on the seabed.
Re claim 23, comprising applying tension to the wire via tension applied to the elongate element by a laying vessel (page 7 and Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 SUNIL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7051. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-3, F 9-8 and 2nd Sat 11-7.
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.
/SUNIL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SS
9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights