Seatower AS

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 1, 2021

2021000196 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/403,909 11/25/2014 Sigurd Ramslie RR47055.P170WOUS 9222 171950 7590 11/01/2021 Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton, LLP 9201 N. Central Expressway Fourth Floor Dallas, TX 75231 EXAMINER LAMBE, PATRICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3679 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): jsheridan@shackelford.law shackelforddocketing@anaqua.com vmhasvi@shackelford.law PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SIGURD RAMSLIE and PETTER J. KARAL Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. LEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–19, 21, and 22. Claims 3 and 20 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Seatower AS. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 2 A. Background The present invention relates to a gravity based structure for supporting offshore installations. Spec. 1:21–25. The Specification describes that the stability of gravity based structures is affected by pore pressure effect and pumping effect caused by cyclic loads, typically from waves, current, and wind, on the seabed, and is a common concern. Id. at 1:27–36. “Excess pore pressure may cause part of the foundation weight to be supported by a water cushion, and hence the weight becomes ineffective with regards to resisting loads.” Id. at 1:36–2:3. “Pockets of water left under the foundation worsen the effect of pore pressure build-up as they generate a ‘pumping’ effect, when the foundation is subjected to cyclic loading, e.g.[,] from waves, currents[,] or wind.” Id. at 2:5–7. The Specification states that there is a need for a gravity based structure which substantially reduces the problems associated with pore pressure build-up and pumping effect due to water pockets beneath the structure. Id. at 4:1–3. It is a principal object of the invention to provide a gravity based structure for supporting offshore installations which can substantially reduce the pore pressure effect and the pumping effect on the seabed and thus achieve significant stability improvements. Id. at 5:9–12. Claims 1 is independent. Claims 2, 4–19, 21, and 22 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. B. Status of Claims Subsequent to entry of the Final Action, Appellant proposed the following amendment to claim 1: Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 3 1. A gravity based structure for supporting offshore installations, the gravity based structure comprising: a foundation comprising: a basal portion comprising: a wall extending upwardly from the basal portion, said wall forming an outer boundary of a cavity; a slab defining a lower boundary of said cavity, said slab having a top surface and a bottom surface and including a portion extending outside a bottom edge of the wall; a plurality of channels openings, each channel of the plurality of channels formed through said portion of the slab extending outside the bottom edge of the wall and each channel of the plurality of channels extending from [[a]] the bottom surface of the slab side to [[a]] the top surface side of said portion of the slab extending outside the bottom edge of the wall, each channel of the plurality of channels comprising a first opening formed through the bottom surface of the slab and open to water surrounding the slab and a second opening formed through the top surface of the slab and open to water surrounding the slab, said plurality of openings channels acting as drainage channels to reduce pore pressure build-up under said slab, the top surface side of the portion of the slab extending outside the bottom edge of the wall being in direct contact with water surrounding an exterior of the gravity based structure; and wherein at least one first layer of filter material, with a gradation suitable for draining water entrapped beneath the basal portion, is installed on a seabed beneath the foundation. Proposed Amdt. (dated Dec. 2, 2019). In an Advisory Action mailed January 7, 2020, the Examiner stated that the proposed amendment filed Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 4 after final rejection “will not be entered,” and “[f]or purposes of appeal,” the proposed amendment “will not be entered.” Advisory Act. (Boxes 3, 7). In its Appeal Brief, however, Appellant includes the proposed amended claims in the Claims Appendix, and argues the claims as though they have been amended, i.e., referring to limitations added to claim 1 by the proposed amendment. Appeal Br. 18–21 (Claims App’x.). Although the Appeal Brief was deemed defective because the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter references the Specification by paragraph rather than by page and line number, the discussion of non-entered claim amendment was not noted. Notif. Non-Comp. Appeal Br. (mailed Apr. 22, 2020). The non- compliant Summary was corrected in a Supplemental Brief dated April 28, 2020, but the Appellant’s arguments still remain directed to non-entered claims. Further, the Examiner’s Answer treats the claims on appeal as though they are the proposed amended claims, and refers to limitations which were added by the proposed amendment. Ans. 1–15. Despite the foregoing, and for purposes of this Decision, we address Appellant’s claims in U.S. Patent Application No. 14/403,909 prior to the Appellant’s proposed amendment subsequent to the Final Action, i.e., the claims as they were finally rejected by the Examiner. Some of Appellant’s arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, however, have application to claim language as finally rejected and one of such arguments has merit. Thus, we proceed with substantive analysis below. C. Subject Matter Described Figure 2 of the Specification illustrates a gravity based structure and is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 5 Figure 2, reproduced above, is a schematic view of a gravity based structure under sea water and installed on a seabed. Spec. 8:30–31. This figure includes foundation portion 4 having basal portion 11, tower portion 2, and conical portion 3. Id. at 10:15–16. Tower portion 2 extends upwards from neck portions 3a of conical portion 3. Id. at 10:18–19. Foundation 4 also includes vertical wall 9 extending upwardly from basal part 11. Id. at 10:31–33. Basal portion 11 is also referred to as basal plate/slab 11. Id. at 11:3–4, 11:29–32. Basal plate/slab 11 has a plurality of openings 10 (not shown in Figure 2) which extend from the bottom surface of the plate or slab to the top surface of the plate or slab. Id. at 11:33–12:2. Openings 10 connect seabed 8 and protective layer 7 resting on seabed 8 with ambient sea water 13 surrounding foundation 4 to reduce pore pressure by draining out the water. Id. at 12:8–11. Protective layer 7 is formed of rocks with a gradation suitable for obtaining effective drainage and to keep seabed sediments from migrating into the pores between the rocks. Id. at 14:27–30. Foundation 4 has skirt 5 which penetrates filter layer 7 and seabed 8. Id. at 10:33–11:1. Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 6 D. References Name Reference Date Lacroix US 3,928,982 Dec. 30, 1975 Cashman US 4,103,502 Aug. 1, 1978 Suzuki US 4,693,637 Sept. 15, 1987 Lin US 4,761,096 Aug. 2, 1988 Ohkubo US 2011/0158753 A1 June 30, 2011 E. Rejections Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, and 21 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Lin. Final Act. 2.2 Claims 4 and 22 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin in view of Suzuki. Id. at 3. Claim 8 was finally under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin in view of Lacroix. Id. at 4. Claim 17 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin. Id. Claims 5–7, 10–12, 15, 18, and 19 were finally under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin in view of Ohkubo. Id. at 5. Claim 9 was finally under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin, Ohkubo, and Cashman. Id. at 7. 2 All references to the Final Action refer to the Final Action mailed on September 30, 2019. Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 7 II. OPINION A. The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, and 21 over Lin 1. Overview of Lin Lin relates to a jack-up type marine platform structure to a universal footing for supporting the legs of such structures. Lin 1:5–7. Lin discloses a universal footing and jetting system for marine platforms and structures. Id. at code (57). The system includes a spud-can forming an enlarged footing base to distribute loadings over a large soil area and thus increase bearing load capacity while reducing file penetration depth. Id. It also includes a conical spike means, indenting into coral or rock type seafloors. Id. It further includes an internal jetting system to fluidize the soil around the footing for ease in placement and removal of the footing on the seafloor. Id. Figure 1 of Lin illustrates an elevation view of Lin’s universal footing and is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 8 Figure 1, reproduced above, illustrates Lin’s universal footing 10 which consists of three parts: spike 12, spud-can 14, and a jetting system which is illustrated in Figure 5. Id. at 3:19–23. Universal footing 10 is constructed to be attached to the leg of a marine platform such as pipe pile 16. Id. at 3:28–32. Via a connection to pipe line 20, high water pressure is provided to inlet 18 at the bottom of pile leg 16. Id. at 3:34–36. Spud-can 14 provides an enlarged footing base and distributes loadings over a large soil area, thus increasing the bearing load capacity of the leg and reducing the penetration depth required. Id. at 3:23–27, 3:41–43. Chamber 22 provides bearing support for the marine structures and a framework of structural steel beams 24, 25, 26, and 27, which are attached to form a wheel shaped structure with conical sides. Id. at 3:51–56. Spike 12 is designed to support the structural weight on the leg when the footing is deployed on a coral or rock type seafloor. Id. at 3:60–63. Spike 12 also includes a plurality of jet nozzles 37 to direct jet flow in desired directions. Id. at 3:67– 4:1. “The preferred positioning of the jets 37 from spike 12 is to provide jet flow directed parallel or tangential to the bottom surface of spud-can 14.” Id. at 4:1–3. Figure 5 of Lin illustrates the jetting networks of Lin’s jetting system in operation within Lin’s universal footing. Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 9 Figure 5, reproduced above, illustrates Lin’s jetting system and shows separate jet pressure inlets 55 and 56 connected to separate jetting networks 58 and 59. Id. at 4:33–35. 2. Independent Claim 1 The Examiner explains that all the elements of claim 1 are shown in Lin. Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Lin discloses a gravity based structure for supporting offshore installations. Final Act. 2. The Examiner states: Lin discloses a gravity based structure for supporting offshore installations. The gravity based structure comprises a foundation. The foundation comprises a basal portion comprising: a wall extending upwardly from the basal portion (pipe pile 16). The wall forming an outer boundary of a cavity (within the pipe pile 16). A slab (spud can 14) defines a lower boundary of said cavity, said slab including a portion extending outside a bottom edge of the wall (see Fig. 5). A plurality of openings are formed through said portion of the slab extending outside the bottom edge of the wall and extending from a bottom side to a top side of said portion of the slab extending outside the Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 10 bottom edge of the wall (see network 59). The plurality of openings act as drainage channels to reduce pore pressure buildup under said slab (see col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 2; discussing suction and pullout resistance). The top side of the portion of the slab extending outside the bottom edge of the wall basal portion is in direct contact with water surrounding an exterior of the gravity based structure (see Fig. 5). At least one first layer of filter material, with a gradation suitable for draining water entrapped beneath the basal portion, is installed on a seabed beneath the foundation (fluidized zone). Id. (emphasis added). Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not identified in Lin a foundation which includes a basal portion. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also asserts the Examiner’s statements are conclusory. Id. at 7. We disagree. The above-quoted text shows the Examiner reasonably identified the basal portion as comprising the wall of Lin’s pipe pile 16, Lin’s spud-can 14, and Lin’s openings through the spud-can. Final Act. 2. Appellant asserts that the Examiner has given “slab” an unreasonably broad interpretation that is not consistent with its ordinary and customary meaning and with the specification. Reply Br. 2. Appellant states that the Examiner’s interpretation is not what one with ordinary skill in the art would conclude. Id. Appellant explains that the ordinary and customary meaning of “slab” is a broad, flat piece of solid material. Id. According to Appellant, the meaning of “a broad, flat piece of solid material” is consistent with the Specification and the drawings. Id. Appellant asserts that Lin’s spud-can 14 is not flat and is not a solid material. Id. at 3. Appellant explains that Lin’s spud-can 14, which the Examiner regards as the claimed slab, “is an enlarged hollow can which distributes loadings over a large soil area thus increasing the bearing load capacity of the legs and reducing the penetration Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 11 depth required.” Id. (quoting Lin 3:23–27). Thus, Appellant asserts that Lin’s spud-can is conical shaped and hollow and is not a substantially flat piece of solid material. Id. For that reason, Appellant contends that Lin’s spud-can 14 cannot constitute the claimed slab. Id. at 3–4. Appellant’s argument about the meaning of “slab” and why Lin’s spud-can 14 cannot constitute a “slab” is belated and not entitled to consideration. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2019). Appellant has not explained why good cause exists to have this new argument, first presented in the Reply, considered. Appellant argues: “[the] jetting network 59 cannot act as ‘drainage channels to reduce pore pressure build-up’ under spud can 14 as required by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 11. What the Examiner regards as jetting network 59 are the openings in spud-can 14. Ans. 6 (specifically identifying inlet opening 56 as an example). These openings are what the Examiner describes as drainage channels in Lin to reduce pore pressure buildup under said slab (spud-can). Final Act. 2. Thus, this argument of Appellant appears to apply to the limitation “openings acting as drainage channels to reduce pore pressure build-up under said slab” in the finally rejected claim 1. The argument has merit. Specifically, the Examiner states: “The plurality of openings act as drainage channels to reduce pore pressure build- up under said slab (see col. 4, line 55 – col. 5, line 2; discussing suction and pullout resistance).” Id. There is inadequate explanation of what, if anything, the openings have to do with alleviating suction and pullout resistance to any drainage function provided by the openings in Lin’s spud- can 14. The cited description of Lin refers to providing a jet stream through the openings to reduce pullout resistance by minimizing the suction and friction resistance of the seafloor soils. Lin 4:68–5:2. That supports Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 12 Appellant’s position that “the jetting increases pressure beneath the universal footing.” Appeal Br. 11. For a better understanding, we reproduce Lin’s Figure 8 below: Figure 8, reproduced above, is an elevational view of Lin’s universal footing and the fluid jet flow applied therethrough. Lin 3:13–15. The jetting directed to the bottom of the seafloor minimizes suction and pull out resistance from the seafloor, as the Examiner asserts (Ans. 8). But the Examiner fails to explain how the openings act as drainage channels to reduce pore pressure build-up under spud-can 14. Appellant also is correct that Lin does not describe jet inlet 56 as being open to the water surrounding spud-can 14. Appeal Br. 9. The jetting is used to facilitate footing penetration into and retrieval from the seafloor. Lin 5:15–18. Lin states that the jetting system “will not plug up” (id. at 5:33), indicating that jet inlet openings 55 and 56 are not left open to surrounding waters when jetting is not activated. The Examiner asserts, however, that “[i]f the pumping system is off, turning the system passive, it will function in the same manner as the claimed invention,” referring to Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 13 providing passive drainage of water from beneath spud-can 14. Ans. 8. The assertion is speculative. The Examiner points to nothing in Lin which indicates that, when the pumping system is turned off, there is a through and unobstructed passageway from the jet outlet openings at the bottom of spud- can 14 to the water surrounding Lin’s universal footing. The Examiner does not explain why such a passageway, if it exists when the pump is turned on to provide a source of incoming water, would not be closed when the water pump is off. Lin’s description that the jetting system “will not plug up” suggests that there is no such passageway when the pump is off. Lin 5:32– 34. The Examiner points to additional inlets, i.e., inlet 18 and pipe 20 shown in Lin’s Figure 1, as being open to surrounding waters. Ans. 7. However, those openings are not formed through the portion of spud-can 14 extending outside the bottom edge of the wall as is required by claim 1. Indeed, they are not on any surface of the spud-can 14. For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated over Lin cannot be sustained. 3. Dependent Claims 2, 13, 14, 16, and 21 Each of claims 2, 13, 14, 16, and 21 depends, directly or indirectly from claim 1. The deficiency of the Examiner’s application of Lin as discussed above, in the context of independent claim 1, equally applies to dependent claims 2, 13, 14, 16, and 21. Consequently, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 13, 14, 16, and 21 as anticipated by Lin also cannot be sustained. Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 14 B. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4 and 22 as Unpatentable over Lin and Suzuki Claims 4 and 22 each depend directly from claim 1. Suzuki as applied by the Examiner does not cure the deficiency of Lin as applied to claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 22 as obvious over Lin and Suzuki cannot be sustained. C. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 8 over Lin and Lacroix Claim 8 depends indirectly from 1. Lacroix as applied by the Examiner does not cure the deficiency of Lin as applied to claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as obvious over Lin and Lacroix cannot be sustained. D. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 17 over Lin Claim 17 depends indirectly from claim 1. Appellant’s accounting for claim 17 does not cure the deficiency of Lin as applied to claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as obvious over Lin cannot be sustained. E. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5–7, 10–12, 15, 18, and 19 over Lin and Ohkubo Each of claims 5–7, 10–12, 15, 18, and 19 depends, directly or indirectly from claim 1. Ohkubo as applied by the Examiner does not cure the deficiency of Lin as applied to claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5–7, 10–12, 15, 18, and 19 as obvious over Lin and Ohkubo cannot be sustained. Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 15 F. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 9 over Lin, Ohkubo, and Cashman Claim 9 depend indirectly from 1. Ohkubo and Cashman as applied by the Examiner do not cure the deficiency of Lin as applied to claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as obvious over Lin, Ohkubo, and Cashman cannot be sustained. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has erred in rejecting (1) claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lin; (2) claims 4 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lin and Suzuki; (3) claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lin and Lacroix; (4) claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lin; (5) claims 5–7, 10– 12, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lin and Ohkubo; and (6) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lin, Ohkubo, and Cashman. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject these claims. Appeal 2021-000196 Application 14/403,909 16 IV. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 21 102(a)(1) Lin 1, 2, 13, 14, 16, 21 4, 22 103 Lin, Suzuki 4, 22 8 103 Lin, Lacroix 8 17 103 Lin 17 5–7, 10–12, 15, 18, 19 103 Lin, Ohkubo 5–7, 10– 12, 15, 18, 19 9 103 Lin, Ohkubo, Cashman 9 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4– 19, 21, 22 REVERSED