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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim element “means for coupling” is a means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description only implicitly or inherently sets forth the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181, applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
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 1-17 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.
Claims 6 and 12 recite tanks surrounding the hull below the spar deck. Based on the specification, drawings, and the claims description, it is unclear to the Examiner what the tanks look like when surrounding the hull below the spar deck. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the buoys surrounding the hull below the spar deck to be the same as the claimed limitation.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, and 14 recite the limitation "the buoyancy can". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 13-14 recite limitations, specifically the structural arrangements around the cylindrical shell are not properly described in the application. Examiner fails to find any mention of the specific structural arrangement within the specification and asks the Applicant to provide guidance. Examiner has not provided a prior art rejection due to lack of description to full understand the claimed invention, but have been rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Claims 4, 9, and 15 are rejected based on dependency on the previously rejected 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khachaturian (WO 2012/040451A2).
As per claim 1, Khachaturian teaches a modular can for enhancing the buoyancy capacity of a spar, the modular can comprising:
-a plurality of compartments releasably connected to one another (Khachaturian: figure 7); and
-means for coupling the buoyancy can to the spar (Khachaturian: figure 1, 18).
As per claim 6, Khachaturian teaches a spar for use as a floating platform in deep waters, comprising:
-a spar deck (Khachaturian: 17);
-a hull (Khachaturian: figure 6, 65) surrounding a center well (Khachaturian: 19), wherein the center well is partitioned by walls that form a plurality of slots (Khachaturian: figure 2), wherein at least one of the slots include a compliant guide mounted to some of the walls;
-tanks surrounding the hull below the spar deck (Khachaturian: figure 6; Shows the hull 65 and buoys 15, 16 surrounding the hull);
-a truss located below the tanks and coupled to the tanks (Khachaturian: pg. 6, 13-16);
-a soft tank located below the truss and coupled to the truss (Khachaturian: figure 5, 24; ballast tanks);
-a modular can located in the at least one of the slots, the modular can including:
-a plurality of compartments releasably connected to one another (Khachaturian: figure 7); and
-means for coupling the buoyancy can to the spar (Khachaturian: figure 1, 18);
-wherein the means for coupling the buoyancy can to the spar interface with the spar at the compliant guide (Khachaturian: figure 8); and
-wherein, in use, the spar is supported by the modular can at one or more of the spar deck, the compliant guide, and the soft can, so that the buoyancy capacity of the spar is enhanced (Khachaturian: figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
525
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
426
634
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
545
833
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 6, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected based on dependency to a rejected claim, but the combined claims contain allowable subject matter, specifically claims 7 and 13 combined with independent claim 6 and 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Otten et al. – WO 2014/172291 A1 – Teaches a semi-submersible floating unit with a deck supported by columns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
