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 .
An amendment was received from Applicant on 4 Dec 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11 are amended.
Claims 8, 9, 12-15 are canceled.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11 are remaining in the Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
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 is 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.
Regarding Claim 2, 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. A PHOSITA would question if Applicant has possession of the apparatus feature of measuring device is configured for measuring the wind field acting on a blade of the floating wind turbine” when the the measuring device comprising a wave buoy, a light detection and ranging device, or a radio detection and ranging device. (It appears have been accelerometers on turbine blade, see paragraph 62, but the change in claim dependency messed this up.)
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Measuring device in claim 1.
Adjustment device in Claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergua (US 20160229494 A1) in view of Drouet (FR 2990681 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Bergua discloses a control system for stabilizing a floating wind turbine, the control system comprising: a measuring device configured for measuring a wind field acting on the floating wind turbine and/or a wave field acting on a floating foundation of the floating wind turbine (paragraph 64); an adjustment device (paragraph 20, 49) which is configured for manipulating the a natural frequency of the floating wind turbine until a balanced state of the floating wind turbine is met, wherein the balanced state is met when the natural frequency is shifted outside of an excitation frequency spectrum comprising frequencies of the wind field and/or the wave field such that an overlap of the natural frequency and the excitation frequency spectrum is avoided. (Reaching a balanced state is withing the range of operational capabilities of the ballast tank of Bergua because it is a ballast tank. See MPEP 2114 regarding operation of an apparatus.) Bergua does not explicitly disclose wherein the measuring device comprising a wave buoy, a light detection and ranging device, or a radio detection and ranging device.
Drouet discloses a measuring device for a measuring device configured for measuring a wind field acting on the floating wind turbine and/or a wave field comprising a wave buoy, a light detection and ranging device, or a radio detection and ranging device. (page 3 of pdf, last paragraph). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use a wave buoy, a light detection and ranging device, or a radio detection and ranging device as a measurement device which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify is to anticipate sufficiently in advance and sufficiently accurately the movements of the ship. (Drouet, page 2, top.)
13. Regarding Claim 2, Bergua in view Drouet discloses control system according to claim 1, wherein the measuring device is configured for measuring the wind field acting on a blade of the floating wind turbine. (Bergua, paragraph 47)
Regarding Claim 10, Bergua in view of Drouet discloses the floating wind turbine comprising a wind rotor comprising a blade; a tower; a floating foundation; and a control system according to claim 1. (See Bergua, Fig. 1a)
Claims 3-7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergua (US 20160229494 A1) in view of Drouet (FR 2990681 A1) in view of Skarre (US 20110316277 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Bergua in view Drouet discloses a control system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising an accelerometer attached to the floating wind turbine to detect an acceleration of a movement of the floating wind turbine.
Skarre discloses an excitation frequency spectrum of the floating wind turbine on a basis of the wind field and a current floater pitch angle of the floating wind turbine (tower motion), further wherein the determining device is further configured for determining a balanced state of the floating wind turbine, and in the balanced state, a natural frequency outside of the excitation frequency spectrum and/or the current floater pitch angle is equal to a pre-defined floater pitch angle. (Fig. 2, also paragraph 113) and an accelerometer [Skarre, Paragraph 34; the accelerometers in the blades also provide the wave frequency in paragraph 101.]. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add the accelerometer of Skarre to the control system of Bergua which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Bergua is to automate the control system suggested by Bergua paragraph 20 “By changing the mass of the offshore structure, also the natural frequency of the structure may be varied. Changing the mass of the offshore structure may be a way of avoiding resonance” and to take into account the wind loads recognized as significant by Bergua and implemented by Skaare.
Regarding Claim 4, Bergua in view Drouet and further in view of Skarre discloses the control system according to claim 1, further comprising wherein an inclinometer to detect an influence of the wind field to the floating wind turbine, or a strain gauge attached to a mooring line of the floating wind turbine to detect an influence of the wind at the mooring line. (The strain gauge in paragraph 24 does this in the same way Applicant’s does by measuring the strain in the mooring line.)
Regarding Claim 5, Bergua in view Drouet and further in view of Skarre discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment device is configured for manipulating the current floater pitch angle and/or the natural frequency by a pitch, a roll, a yaw, a surge, a sway or a heave of the floating wind turbine. (Bergua. Paragraph 20, paragraph 70)
Regarding Claim 6, Bergua in view Drouet and further in view of Skarre discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment device is configured for manipulating the current floater pitch angle and/or the natural frequency by manipulating a mass, a buoyancy, or a draught of the floating wind turbine. (Bergua paragraph 71)
Regarding Claim 7, Bergua in view Drouet and further in view of Skarre discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment device comprises a mooring line actuator or a ballast tan with a water pump. (Bergua, paragraph 70, 71)
Regarding Claim 11, Bergua in view of Drouetand further in view of Skarre discloses the method for stabilizing a floating wind turbine (Bergua Fig. 1.) , the method comprising: measuring a wind field and/or a wave field acting on the floating wind turbine using a wave buoy, a light detection and ranging device, or a radio detection and ranging device; (page 3 of pdf, last paragraph)determining a balanced state of the floating wind turbine, wherein in the balanced state the natural frequency is outside of the excitation frequency spectrum and/or the current floater pitch angle is equal to a pre-defined floater pitch angle, and manipulating the current floater pitch angle and/or the natural frequency until the balanced state is met. (See rejection of Claim 1 above. "adding mass to avoid resonance" manipulates the natural frequency). Bergua in view of Skaare does not explicitly disclose wherein "when the natural frequency is shifted outside of an excitation frequency spectrum comprising frequencies of the windfield and/or the wave field such that an overlap of the natural frequency and the excitation frequency spectrum is avoided."
Bergua suggests that mass is result effective variable for avoiding resonance. (paragraph 20) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to alter the mass of the floating wind turbine via the ballast tanks such that shifted outside of an excitation frequency spectrum comprising frequencies of the windfield and/or the wave field such that an overlap of the natural frequency and the excitation frequency spectrum is avoided which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Bergua is that resonance occurs at the natural frequency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 11 April 2026
Prosecution Insights