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
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 26 December 2024 and 21 April 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “settable locking media” as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “13” and “17”.
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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[FIG 1]” should be deleted from the bottom of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 6 - 7 of page 4, the phrase “for resisting high angle mooring through to vertically loaded tension leg systems” is confusing. In particular, it is unclear what “through to” means.
In line 14 of page 7, “Figures” should be changed to “figures” because it does not refer to specific figures (i.e. Figures 1 and 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 - 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9 of claim 1, “an off-shore anchoring system” should be changed to “the off-shore anchoring system”.
In line 1 of claim 2, “A method” should be changed to “The method”. Similar changes should be made in claims 3 - 7.
In line 3 of claim 5, “an anchor pile” should be changed to “the anchor pile”.
In line 5 of claim 5, “a lateral load transition member” should be changed to “the lateral load transition member”.
In lines 1 - 2 of claim 7, “a lower portion” should be changed to “the lower portion”.
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 - 7 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 limitation “the cross-sectional dimensions of the first lower portion” is confusing because it is unclear as to which angles through the borehole (i.e. vertical, horizontal, or some other angle) the cross-sections are taken.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the cross-sectional dimensions of the second upper portion” is confusing because it is unclear as to which angles through the borehole (i.e. vertical, horizontal, or some other angle) the cross-sections are taken.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cross-sectional dimensions" in lines 3 - 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cross-sectional dimensions" in lines 4 - 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear if “a cross-sectional dimension” as recited in line 2 refers to one of the “cross-sectional dimensions” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, or if it represents an additional limitation.
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.
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), in which the cross- sectional dimensions of the first lower portion are smaller than the 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 an off-shore anchoring system comprising an anchor pile (10/110) and a lateral load transition member (pipe 138) into the settable locking media within the borehole, such that 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 and spaced apart from the anchor pile (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.
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 anchor pile comprising a first elongate body (110) having an upper end and a lower end; a lateral load transition member comprising a second elongate body (138) having an upper end, and an opposed lower end positioned adjacent and spaced apart from the upper end of the first elongate body of the anchor pile; and 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 a first lower portion of the borehole having a 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.
Conclusion
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
5/13/2026
Prosecution Insights