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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The markings in each of the figures are too dark and blurry, which prevents Examiner from identifying and distinguishing between the various structural elements shown in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 4 - 5 of claim 1, the phrase “a first cross-sectional dimensions” is awkward because “a” indicates a single dimension but “dimensions” indicates a plurality of dimensions. Examiner suggests changing “a first cross-sectional dimensions” to “first cross-sectional dimensions”, “a set of first cross-sectional dimensions”, or something similar. Whatever changes that are made to claim language should be used consistently throughout the claims.
In line 5 of claim 1, the phrase “a second cross-sectional dimensions” is awkward because “a” indicates a single dimension but “dimensions” indicates a plurality of dimensions. Examiner suggests changing “a second cross-sectional dimensions” to “second cross-sectional dimensions”, “a set of second cross-sectional dimensions”, or something similar. Whatever changes that are made to claim language should be used consistently throughout the claims.
In line 22 of claim 1, “trsnsition” should be changed to “transition”.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the first cross-sectional dimension" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of the “first cross-sectional dimensions” recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, the “first cross-sectional dimension” refers.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuthill et al. (US 2003/0190195) in view of Schellhorn (US 4,958,962).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Cuthill discloses a method for installing an off-shore anchoring system comprising: drilling a borehole (unlabeled) in a seabed, the borehole comprising a first lower portion (portion of borehole having a uniform diameter, the diameter of the first lower portion being less than or equal to the smallest diameter of the second upper portion) in communication with a second upper portion (portion of borehole located adjacent the seabed surface having a variable diameter) the first lower portion having a first cross-sectional dimensions and the second upper portion having a second cross-sectional dimensions, the first cross sectional dimensions and the second cross-sectional dimensions being measured in a plane extending perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the borehole in which the first cross-sectional dimensions of the first lower portion are smaller than the second cross- sectional dimensions of the second upper portion, and in which an inwardly protruding abutment surface is provided at a transition point located therebetween; introducing settable locking media comprising cement (cement 28) into the borehole; and introducing the off-shore anchoring system comprising an anchor pile (10/110) into the settable locking media within the borehole, the off-shore anchoring system comprising: the anchor pile (10/110) comprising a first elongate body having an upper end and a lower end; and a lateral load transition member (pipe 138) comprising a second elongate body having an upper end configured in use to be in communication with a laterally-loaded mooring tether and an opposed lower end positioned adjacent and spaced apart from the upper end of the first elongate body of the anchor pile; such that in use the anchor pile is located within the first lower portion of the borehole, and the lateral load transition member is located within the second upper portion of the borehole (Figs. 2, 6A, and 6B; paragraphs 0029, 0032, 0033, 0038, and 0039). Cuthill fails to disclose the step of introducing the off-shore anchoring system occurs subsequent to introducing a settable locking media into the borehole. Schellhorn teaches introducing an off-shore anchoring system (pile 60) occurs subsequent to introducing a settable locking media (admixture 28 comprising Portland cement) into a borehole (unlabeled borehole formed by auger 10) (Figs. 1 - 3; col. 3, line 61 - col. 4, line 8; col. 6, line 58 - col. 7, line 34). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of introducing an off-shore anchoring system after introducing a settable locking media into a borehole as taught by Schellhorn to strengthen the soil strata adjacent the borehole wall to prevent collapse of the soil into the borehole. Examiner notes that the claim does not require a stepped geometry. Examiner notes that claim 1 only recites “the first cross-sectional dimensions of the first lower portion are smaller than the second cross-sectional dimensions of the second upper portion”. Examiner maintains that Figs. 2, 6A, and 6B of Cuthill clearly illustrate the upper end of the borehole has larger cross-sectional dimensions than the lower end of the borehole.
Regarding claim 2, Cuthill further discloses introducing the settable locking media (cement 28) into the first lower portion (portion of borehole having a uniform diameter, the diameter of the first lower portion being less than or equal to the smallest diameter of the second upper portion) of the borehole (Figs. 2 - 5; paragraphs 0014 and 0033).
Regarding claim 3, Cuthill further discloses the settable locking media is introduced into the first lower portion (portion of borehole located below the bottom end of the connection assembly 18/118) and to not extend beyond the transition point (Figs. 2 - 5).
Regarding claim 5, Cuthill further discloses the off-shore anchoring system comprises: an intermediate portion (joint 134) connecting the lower end of the second elongate body of the lateral load transition member to the upper end of the first elongate body (110) of the anchor pile (Figs. 6A and 6B; paragraphs 0038 and 0039).
Regarding claim 6, Cuthill further discloses positioning the second elongate body (138) of the lateral load transition member such that at least a portion of the lower end of the second elongate body extends into the first lower portion (portion of borehole having a uniform diameter, the diameter of the first lower portion being less than or equal to the smallest diameter of the second upper portion) of the borehole (Figs. 2, 6A, and 6B).
Regarding claim 7, Cuthill in view of Schellhorn discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except drilling the first lower portion of the borehole having the first cross-sectional dimension of between 300 mm and 500 mm. Examiner takes the position that the cross-sectional dimension of the first lower portion lacks criticality in the claim and is a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the size and shape of the anchoring system and the material of which the borehole wall is made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cuthill fails to disclose introducing cement into the borehole before the anchoring system is introduced into the locking media. Examiner replies that Cuthill was not relied upon to teach introducing cement into the borehole before the anchoring system is introduced into the locking media. Examiner relied upon Schellhorn to teach the aforementioned limitation.
Applicant argues that Cuthill does not disclose the claimed stepped geometry. Examiner replies that the claim does not require a stepped geometry. Examiner notes that claim 1 only recites “the first cross-sectional dimensions of the first lower portion are smaller than the second cross-sectional dimensions of the second upper portion”. Examiner maintains that Figs. 2, 6A, and 6B of Cuthill clearly illustrate the upper end of the borehole has larger cross-sectional dimensions than the lower end of the borehole. Examiner takes the position that even though the upper end of the borehole as taught by Cuthill might be wider than the lower portions of the borehole merely to create clearance around the pile, the geometry of the borehole as illustrated in Figs. 2, 6A, and 6B of Cuthill still reads on the claim limitations.
Applicant argues that Cuthill does not teach pipe 138 as having an upper end configured to communicate with a laterally loaded mooring tether. Examiner replies that Fig. 6B of Cuthill illustrates pipe 138 having an upper end communicating with mooring line 130. Examiner takes the position that even though Cuthill does not explicitly teach the mooring line 130 is a laterally loaded mooring line, it is possible to apply lateral loading to the upper end of the mooring line 130 and, therefore, the apparatus as taught by Cuthill reads on the claim limitation.
Applicant argues that Cuthill does not teach a distinct lateral load transition member is positioned in the second upper portion of the borehole while the anchor pile is positioned in the first lower portion. Examiner replies that Cuthill teaches the lateral load transition member (138) is distinct from the anchor pile (110), the lateral transition member is positioned in the second upper portion, and the anchor pile (10/110) is located in the first lower portion (portion of borehole having a uniform diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the upper end of the borehole. (Figs. 2, 6A, and 6B).
Applicant argues that Schellhorn fails to teach the claimed stepped borehole, the inwardly protruding abutment surface, or an off-shore anchoring system comprising both an anchor pile and a separate lateral load transition member positioned in the respective lower and upper borehole portions. Examiner replies that Schellhorn was not relied upon to teach the aforementioned limitations. Examiner relied upon Cuthill to teach those limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights