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 Objections
Claim 18 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1-3, 7-10, 12, 14-15, 18, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graf (EP 2604501 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Graf discloses a method of organizing a system of one or more offshore variable resource structures (figs. 1-7; paras 0025-0029), the method comprising the steps of: providing one or more variable resource foundations (13/14/15), the one or more variable resource foundations supporting a variable resource (17/18); providing at least one near-surface buoy (8); providing at least one seabed anchor (5, figs. 3-4); orienting the variable resource near, at, or above a waterline of a body of water (fig. 3); and connecting the one or more variable resource foundations to the at least one near-surface buoy (fig. 3), the at least one near-surface buoy is connected to the at least one seabed anchor (via 3/4), the at least one seabed anchor is not vertically in alignment underneath the at least one near-surface buoy (fig. 4) an angle between the one or more variable resource foundations, the at least one near-surface buoy, and the at least one seabed anchor is not a right angle (figs. 3-4).
With regard to claim 2, Graf further discloses introducing a degree of compliance to reduce a load on the at least one seabed anchor (paras 0012, 0014-0015).
With regard to claim 3, Graf discloses a shared mooring anchor system (figs. 1-7; paras 0025-0029), comprising: one or more variable resource foundations (13/14/15), the one or more variable resource foundations supporting a variable resource (17/18), the variable resource is oriented near, at, or above a waterline of a body of water (fig. 3); at least one near-surface buoy (8); at least one seabed anchor (5); wherein the one or more variable resource foundations is connected to the at least one near-surface buoy (fig. 3), the at least one near-surface buoy is connected to the at least one seabed anchor in an arrangement (via 4/5); wherein the one or more variable resource foundations, the at least one near-surface buoy, and the at least one seabed anchor is positioned based on rules of symmetry ( (figs. 2, 4 and 7; para 0014), and the at least one seabed anchor is not vertically in alignment underneath the at least one near-surface buoy (fig. 4).
With regard to claim 7, Graf further discloses the one or more variable resource foundations, the at least one near-surface buoy, and the at least one seabed anchor is positioned based on the rules of symmetry (figs. 3-4, para 0014), whereby, the variable resource is positioned at an internal symmetry of a unit cell being monoclinic (figs. 2-4, 7; para 0014).
With regard to claim 8, Graf further discloses the at least one near-surface buoy is placed at a face center, the at least one near-surface buoy is placed at one or more positions per a unit cell to triangulate the variable resource (figs. 3-4, 7).
With regard to claim 9, Graf further discloses the one or more variable resource foundations, the at least one near-surface buoy, and the at least one seabed anchor is positioned based on the rules of symmetry, whereby, the variable resource is positioned at vertices of a lattice of a unit cell being a rhombus (figs. 2-4, 7; paras 0014, 0026).
With regard to claim 10, Graf further discloses the one or more variable resource foundations, the at least one near-surface buoy, and the at least one seabed anchor is positioned based on the rules of symmetry, whereby, the variable resource is positioned at vertices of a lattice of a unit cell being a parallelogram (figs. 2-4, 7; paras 0014, 0026).
With regard to claim 12, Graf further discloses the variable resource is connected to the at least one near-surface buoy by one or more lengths of mooring line (figs. 3,7).
With regard to claim 14, Graf further discloses a plurality of near-surface buoys are connected in series (figs. 2,4,7).
With regard to claims 15 and 18, Graf further discloses the at least one near-surface buoy is connected to the at least one seabed anchor by one or more lengths of mooring line (figs. 3-4,7).
With regard to claim 23, Graf discloses an offshore mooring system (figs. 1-7), comprising: an anchor (5) positioned on a seabed (figs. 3-4,7); a buoy (8) positioned between the anchor and a floating foundation; a first mooring line (3/4) of a first axial stiffness value, connecting the anchor to the buoy (figs 3,7); and a second mooring line (fig. 3) of a second axial stiffness value being less than the first axial stiffness value and connecting the buoy to the floating foundation (paras 0025-0027);wherein the second mooring line is configured to absorb dynamic forces from the floating foundation (fig. 3).
With regard to claim 24, Graf further discloses the buoy is sized to generate a buoyant force to induce static restraining forces in the first mooring line and the second mooring line (paras 0013-0016).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (EP 2604501 A1) in view of Draper et al. (2009/0183667).
With regard to claim 4, Graf, as modified, disclose the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state the variable resource is positioned within a hexagonal lattice.
Draper discloses a shared mooring anchor system wherein variable resource is positioned within a hexagonal lattice (fig. 2; para 0003).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graf and place the variable resource is positioned within a hexagonal lattice as taught in Draper, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimize the amount of anchors needed as taught by Draper (para 0002).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (EP 2604501 A1).
With regard to claim 5, Graf discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as the one or more variable resource foundations, the at least one near-surface buoy, and the at least one seabed anchor is positioned based on the rules of symmetry (figs. 3-4, para 0014), however fails to explicitly state the variable resource is positioned at an internal symmetry of a unit cell being tetragonal.
Graf teaches a variety of arrangements to include quadrangular (para 0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one may arrange the variable resource at any desired position based on various site-specific design conditions at hand. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily have arrived at a tetragonal design through routine experimentation. When the general features of the claim language are met by the prior art, it is not considered inventive to discover or determine optimum or workable details for specific applications simply through routine experimentation. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
With regard to claim 6, Graf discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as the one or more variable resource foundations, the at least one near-surface buoy, and the at least one seabed anchor is positioned based on the rules of symmetry (figs. 3-4, para 0014), however fails to explicitly state the variable resource is positioned at an internal symmetry of a unit cell being orthorhombic.
Graf teaches a variety of arrangements to include quadrangular (para 0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one may arrange the variable resource at any desired position based on various site-specific design conditions at hand. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily have arrived at an orthorhombic design through routine experimentation. When the general features of the claim language are met by the prior art, it is not considered inventive to discover or determine optimum or workable details for specific applications simply through routine experimentation. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05 II.
With regard to claim 25, Graf discloses an offshore mooring system (figs. 1-7), comprising: an anchor (5) positioned on a seabed (figs. 3-4, 7); a buoy (8) positioned between the anchor and a floating foundation (figs. 3,7); a first mooring line of a first axial stiffness value, connecting the anchor to the buoy (3/4); and a second mooring line of a second axial stiffness value (fig. 3) (fig. 3); wherein the buoy is configured to convert one or more dynamic forces from the floating foundation into buoyant potential energy (fig. 3; submerged buoyancy).
Graf fails to explicitly state being substantially similar to or equal to axial stiffness values. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the axial stiffness values of the individual mooring lines be any desired size to include being equal based on the design conditions at hand and an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 26, Graf further discloses the buoy is sized to generate a buoyant force to induce small static restraining forces in the first mooring line and the second mooring line such that the buoy is not unduly restrained from motion in a lateral direction or a vertical direction (fig. 3; submerged buoyancy).
With regard to claim 27, Graf further discloses the buoy is designed to generate hydrodynamic drag forces to dissipate energy associated with the one or more dynamic forces (fig. 3; submerged buoyancy).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (EP 2604501 A1) in view of Westby et al. (2012/0285544).
With regard to claim 11, Graf discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the one or more variable resource foundations, the at least one near-surface buoy, and the at least one seabed anchor are densely positioned based on a weather forecast.
Westby discloses a method of organizing a system of one or more offshore variable resource structures wherein the one or more variable resource foundations, the at least one near-surface buoy, and the at least one seabed anchor are densely positioned based on a weather forecast (paras 0106-0112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graf and densely position the device as taught in Westby, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimize potential damage during severe weather as taught by Westby (para 0133).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (EP 2604501 A1) in view of Bauduin et al. (2008/0311804).
With regard to claim 13, Graf discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as the variable resource is connected to the at least one near-surface buoy by one or more lengths of mooring line (figs. 2-4, 7) however is silent regarding the one or more mooring lines have been pretensioned.
Baudin discloses a method of organizing a system of one or more offshore variable resource structures wherein the mooring lines have been pretensioned (para 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graf and pretension the mooring line as taught in Baudin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimize displacement of the variable resource.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (EP 2604501 A1) in view of Goold et al. (4,774,903).
With regard to claim 16, Graf discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding one or more lengths of mooring line which have been subdivided to provide rotational restraint to the variable resource.
Goold discloses a mooring system wherein mooring lines are subdivided to provide rotational restraint to the variable resource (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 3-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graf and utilize mooring line that provide rotational restrain as taught in Goold, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mooring system which can provide rotational stability and stow easily as taught by Goold (col. 1, lines 11-18).
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (EP 2604501 A1) in view of Glaab (11,745,833).
With regard to claims 17 and 19, Graf disclose the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding one or more length of the mooring lines have been spliced.
Glaab discloses a mooring system wherein the mooring lines may be spliced (col. 4, lines 15-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graf and utilize mooring line that have been spliced as taught in Glaab, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce chafing and wear within the mooring system.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (EP 2604501 A1) in view of O’Rourke et al. (2021/0403128).
With regard to claim 20, Graf disclose the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding divers and an unmanned underwater vehicle to implement an installation of the system.
O’Rourke discloses a mooring system wherein divers and an unmanned underwater vehicle may implement an installation of the system (para 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graf and utilize divers and unmanned underwater vehicles as taught in O’Rourke, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the most efficient means of installation.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf (EP 2604501 A1) in view of Barrier et al. (WO 2023/222413 A1).
With regard to claims 21-22, Graf disclose the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding an intermediate system to mitigate a transfer of loads to the at least one seabed anchor and the intermediate system selected from the group consisting of a spring, an elastomer, a load collector, and a dashpot.
Barrier discloses a mooring system with an elastomer intermediate system (26) to mitigate a transfer of loads to the at least one seabed anchor (para 0076).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graf and an intermediate system as taught in Barrier, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to eliminate need for antifouling treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Numerous references discloses mooring systems with the use of a buoy; such as Kawabe et al. (2014/0302732).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
10/14/2026
