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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by (BR PI0708795 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Allen discloses a method for installing a vortex-induced vibration (VIV)-suppression assembly [Description], comprising: introducing a vortex-induced vibration (VIV)-suppression device [304, 306; Figures 2 & 3a, 3b] comprising an elastic polymeric rubber material [Detailed Description] to a tubular member [204] above a surface of a body of water such that the tubular member is at least partially enveloped [Figures 4a-4c show it in the vessel saddle], where a portion of the tubular member is suspended above the surface of the body of water and where a riser length potion of the tubular member is suspended below the surface of the water in a vertical or near-vertical configuration [Figure 2]; introducing the VIV-suppression device around the tubular member into the body of water; positioning the VIV-suppression device along the riser length of the tubular member; and securing the VIV-suppression device along the riser length of the tubular member such that at least a portion of an inner perimeter of the secured VIV-suppression device contacts an outer perimeter of the tubular member, forming a VIV-suppression assembly [Figures 1-5b].
Regarding claim 2, Allen further discloses, the VIV-suppression device has a strake configuration [spiral shape; Figures 2, 3b & 5b].
Regarding claim 12, Allen further discloses, the VIV-suppression device is secured along the riser Preliminary Amendment length potion of the tubular member utilizing one or more securement bands, rings, or clamps comprised of Inconel [inherent the VIV device is connected via some sort of mechanical fastener such that it would remain in place; or it would have been obvious to utilize band/clamp system from incorporated reference (US 6896447)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3-9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (BR PI0708795 A2) in view of Forster (US 5044826).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 7, 8 and 13, Allen fails to disclose the VIV-suppression device is introduced via a spool mounted on an offshore vessel.
Forster teaches applying a woven net [62] around the surface of an offshore riser [16] via a spool [70].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Allen by applying the VIV-suppression device via a spool as described by Forster to increase the speed of installation by enabling the device to be able to be applied via a long string rather than sectionally, thereby saving time and money.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 9 and 11, although the Allen-Forster combination is silent as to the specific length of VIV-suppression device, its percentage of the outer perimeter of the tubular member, an relative length with respect to the tubular member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize values within the claimed ranges depending on a number of factors including the diameter/thickness/material of the riser, the ocean depth and relative wave/tide depth that induces vortex induced vibrations, as well as how much force they carry.. Subsequently, it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges requires only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Allen-Forster combination as applied to claims 1-9 and 11-13 above, and further in view of McMillan et al. (US 2003/0213113 A1).
The Allen-Forster combination fails to disclose the use of a stop-clamp device on the tubular member.
McMillan teaches a VIV-suppression device for an offshore riser having stop-clamps [940] on the tubular member [Figure 9] to position the VIV-suppression device long it accordingly [Paragraph 87].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of the Allen-Forster combination by adding the stop-clamps as described by McMillan to prevent stacking, twisting and any other undesired movement of the device along the tubular member thereby mitigating the potential need for repairs and saving time and money.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forster (US 5044826) in view of Allen et al. (BR PI0708795 A2).
Regarding claim 14, 16 and 17, Forster discloses a spool [70] for installation on an open-weave netting for a protection system of an offshore riser [16], comprising one or more open-weave netting devices [62] having a unitary length wrapped around a hub of the spool in an extended, ribbon-like configuration [Figure 7] under tension and comprised of an elastic polymeric material [inherent tension is required to wind something on a spool and there would be at least some remaining in the spool afterwards].
Forster fails to disclose the spool contains a VIV-suppression device.
Allen teaches an offshore riser protection system, comprising an elastic polymeric rubber VIV-suppression device [304, 306; Figures 2 & 3a, 3b] in a strake configuration [obvious the VIV device is connected via some sort of mechanical fastener such that it would remain in place; or it would have been further obvious to utilize band/clamp system from incorporated reference (US 6896447)] that is installed around an offshore riser [204].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Forster by substituting the open-weave netting protection for the VIV-suppression protection device as described by Allen to enable the spool to accommodate multiple types of offshore riser protection systems, thereby increasing its versatility, applicability, and subsequently profitability.
Although the Forster-Allen combination is silent as to the specific length of VIV-suppression device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize values within the claimed ranges depending on a number of factors including the diameter/thickness/material of the riser, the ocean depth and relative wave/tide depth that induces vortex induced vibrations, as well as how much force they carry. Subsequently, it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges requires only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Forster further discloses the spool is mounted on an offshore vessel [ROV].
Regarding claim 18, although the Forster-Allen combination is silent as to the inner perimeter of VIV-suppression device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize values within the claimed range depending on a number of factors including the diameter/thickness/material of the riser, the ocean depth and relative wave/tide depth that induces vortex induced vibrations, as well as how much force they carry. Subsequently, it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges requires only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Taquino (US 6896447), which is incorporated into the Allen reference, discloses a rubber/polymeric strake VIV suppression device that is disposed on an offshore riser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
