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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the main connection arms intersecting with an angle (α) greater than 60° (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Please note that while it is understood that drawings are not to scale, only figure 2 depicts the angle α. In current figure 2, the vertical bodies 8 form a perfect equilateral triangle, meaning each included angle is exactly 60°. See annotated current figure 2 below, in which every arrow is the same length.
PNG
media_image1.png
471
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Current Figure 2 (annotated)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 4-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez Romero US 11,920,559 in view of Zou US 2018/0105235, Huang US 6,447,208, and Aubault US 10,174,744, and alternately also in view of Vandenworm US 10,300,993.
Regarding claim 1, Vazquez Romero teaches a floating platform 1 for supporting offshore structures intended to generate electric power, said platform comprising:
a load-bearing support base 11 made of concrete and defining a longitudinal axis, said base being provided with three vertices and an intermediate point located in proximity to its geometric center (note that while Vazquez Romero depicts four vertices, it teaches that there can be 3 vertices located about the intermediate point- column 8, lines 10-18);
a plurality of vertical bodies 2, 21 made of concrete and extending from said support base, at said vertices and at said intermediate point;
wherein a vertex (any corner) of said load-bearing support base is located in a longitudinally forward position with respect to the other two vertices;
wherein said load-bearing support base comprises one pair of main connection arms 3 directly connecting the vertex in the longitudinally forward position with the other two vertices to substantially define the shape of an arrow, in plan view, for said support base;
wherein said main connection arms are arranged along respective directions which intersect substantially at the vertex of said base located in the longitudinally forward position and are angularly spaced with an angle (α);
wherein the plurality of vertical bodies comprises four vertical bodies comprising internal stiffening elements 53;
the vertical bodies 2 placed on the vertices comprise internal reinforcements 53 and further reinforcements placed at their top to connect mooring lines 10 (column 7, lines 47-55).
PNG
media_image2.png
345
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Vazquez Romero Figure 2
Vazquez Romero does not explicitly teach internal reinforcements at the base. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add more reinforcements in order to better strengthen the bodies, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate these reinforcements at the base in order to ensure that the bottom is supported as well, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Vazquez Romero does not teach a first series of secondary connection arms, each one of which is suited to directly connect the intermediate point of said load-bearing support base to a corresponding main connection arm. Zou teaches a floating platform 50 for supporting offshore structures intended to generate electric power, said platform comprising:
a load-bearing support base 52 defining a longitudinal axis, said base being provided with three vertices and an intermediate point located in proximity to its geometric center;
a plurality of vertical bodies 58 extending from said support base, at said vertices and at said intermediate point;
wherein a vertex (any corner) of said load-bearing support base is located in a longitudinally forward position with respect to the other two vertices;
wherein said load-bearing support base comprises one pair of main connection arms 68 suited to directly connect the vertex in a longitudinally forward position with the other two vertices to substantially define the shape of an arrow, in plan view, for said support base; and
a first series of secondary connection arms 68, each one of which is suited to directly connect the intermediate point of said load-bearing support base to a corresponding main connection arm.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Secondary Connection Arms)][AltContent: textbox (Intermediate Point)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Main Connection Arms)][AltContent: textbox (Forward Vertex)]
PNG
media_image3.png
356
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Zou Figure 1
In this case, Zou teaches a floating platform in which the upper support truss comprises members 68 which connect each vertex to the neighboring vertex, each vertex to the intermediate point, and the intermediate point to each main connecting arm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Vazquez Romero with secondary connection arms suited to directly connect the intermediate point of said load-bearing support base to a corresponding main connection arm as taught by Zou in order to “provide the hull with increased strength” [0070].
Vazquez Romero does not teach that the angle (α) is greater than 60°; said angle (α) greater than 60° located to enable a reduction of lateral oscillations of the platform when the latter is installed in water and oriented with its axis parallel to a prevailing direction of the waves. Huang teaches a floating platform 100 for supporting offshore structures intended to generate electric power, said platform comprising:
a load-bearing support base 11 made of concrete and defining a longitudinal axis, said base being provided with three vertices and an intermediate point located in proximity to its geometric center (note that while Huang depicts four vertices, it teaches that there can be 3 vertices in a right triangle located about the intermediate point- column 5, lines 30-36);
a plurality of vertical bodies 102 made of concrete and extending from said support base, at said vertices;
wherein a vertex (any corner) of said load-bearing support base is located in a longitudinally forward position with respect to the other two vertices;
wherein said load-bearing support base comprises one pair of main connection arms 110 directly connecting the vertex in the longitudinally forward position with the other two vertices to substantially define the shape of an arrow, in plan view, for said support base;
wherein said main connection arms are arranged along respective directions which intersect substantially at the vertex of said base located in the longitudinally forward position and are angularly spaced with an angle (α) greater than 60°;
said angle (α) greater than 60° located to enable a reduction of lateral oscillations of the platform when the latter is installed in water and oriented with its axis parallel to a prevailing direction of the waves (a right triangle will have a vertex greater than 60°, column 5, lines 25-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Vazquez Romero with a non-symmetrical right triangular base as taught by Huang in order to make the structure “less sensitive to some types of regularly repeating Specification or periodic forces” (column 5, lines 25-36).
Vazquez Romero does not teach that the plurality of vertical bodies comprise internal stiffening elements consisting of an annular transverse structure arranged at a height of lattice covers of the arms; or the vertical body located on the intermediate point contains both internal stiffening structures constituted by the extension towards the inside of the arms to which it is connected. Aubault teaches a floating platform for supporting offshore structures intended to generate electric power, said platform comprising:
a load-bearing support base 52 defining a longitudinal axis, said base being provided with three vertices;
a plurality of vertical bodies 215 extending from said support base, at said vertices;
wherein a vertex (any corner) of said load-bearing support base is located in a longitudinally forward position with respect to the other two vertices;
wherein said load-bearing support base comprises one pair of main connection arms 210 suited to directly connect the vertex in a longitudinally forward position with the other two vertices to substantially define the shape of an arrow, in plan view, for said support base; wherein
the plurality of vertical bodies comprise internal stiffening elements 430 consisting of an annular transverse structure;
the vertical bodies contain internal stiffening structures constituted by the extension towards the inside of the arms 425 to which it is connected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vertical bodies of Vazquez Romero with annular stiffening elements and internal stiffening structures constituted by the extension towards the inside of the arms as taught by Aubault in order to increase the stiffness and durability of the columns.
Neither Vazquez Romero nor Aubault teach the internal stiffening elements arranged at a height of lattice covers of the arms, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate these reinforcements at the top of the arms in order to ensure that the vertical bodies are supported where needed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Vazquez Romero does not teach that the vertical body located on the intermediate point contains extra thicknesses at its truncated-conical polygonal area and its top. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the bodies thicker at the top and bottom or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide the desired form factor and/or weight distribution. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Alternatively, Vandenworm teaches a floating platform 10 for supporting offshore structures intended to generate electric power, said platform comprising extra thicknesses at its truncated-conical polygonal area and its top. In this case, Vandenworm teaches several floating bodies in which comprise truncated cone sections such that the middle is of a smaller diameter than the ends. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vertical bodies of Vazquez Romero to have extra thicknesses at its truncated-conical polygonal area and its top as taught by Vandenworm in order to provide the desired form factor and/or weight distribution.
Regarding claim 2, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Zou also teaches that each secondary connection arm of said first series is suited to connect said intermediate point to the corresponding main connection arm substantially at the midpoint of the latter.
Regarding claim 4 Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Huang also teaches that the base can be an isosceles triangle, meaning that the main connection arms have substantially the same length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the floating platform of Vazquez Romero with a non-symmetrical isosceles triangular base as taught by Huang in order to make the structure “less sensitive to some types of regularly repeating Specification or periodic forces” (column 5, lines 25-36). Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the triangular base of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, including with arms that match in length, in order to utilize standard parts and obtain the desired form factor and stability. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 5, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Vazquez Romero also teaches that said support base 11 comprises a further main arm 3 suited to connect the vertices arranged in a longitudinally rearward position.
Regarding claim 6, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Vazquez Romero also teaches that said load-bearing support base 11 comprises a second series of secondary connection arms 31, each of which is suited to connect said intermediate point 21 to a corresponding vertical body 2 located at said vertices.
Regarding claim 7, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Vazquez Romero also teaches that said main connection arms 3 and/or the secondary connection arms 31 of said first series and of said second series respectively have a substantially square or rectangular cross section and an inner cavity, said cavity being defined by two pairs of longitudinal parallel walls (column 6, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 10, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Vazquez Romero also teaches that said vertical bodies 2 are hollow (abstract) and have a substantially cylindrical cross section in plan view. Vazquez Romero does not teach a polygonal cross section, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the vertical bodies polygonal or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to simplify manufacturing, reduce cost, react to the anticipated loads and/or achieve the desired aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 11, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Vazquez Romero also teaches that said load-bearing support base 11 comprises a slab made of concrete and having a predetermined shape in plan view, said slab being suited to connect the three vertices and said intermediate point to one another.
Regarding claim 12, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Vazquez Romero also teaches that said load-bearing support base 11 has a substantially horizontal outer edge obtained on said slab or respectively extending from at least one portion of said main arms 3 and/or from at least one portion of said secondary arms 31 and/or from at least one portion of said vertical bodies (see Vazquez Romero figure 2).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez Romero US 11,920,559 in view of Zou US 2018/0105235, Huang US 6,447,208, Aubault US 10,174,744 and Dagher US 10,202,170, alternately also in view of Vandenworm US 10,300,993.
Regarding claim 8, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Vazquez Romero does not teach interior details of the connection arms. Dagher teaches a floating platform in which the connection arms 74 comprise a plurality of transverse walls 142 arranged inside said cavity 138 in a longitudinally offset position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the connection arms of Vazquez Romero and Zou with a series of transverse walls as taught by Dagher in order to enable selective and/or controllable ballasting of different regions of the base.
Regarding claim 9, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang, Aubault and Dagher, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Dagher also teaches that each of said transverse walls 142 has a lower opening 144 suited to allow the passage of water for filling said cavity 138 and an upper opening 122 suited to allow the escape of the air present in the cavity while the latter is being filled with water. Note that opening 112 is capable allowing air to escape. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4- Robinson Figure 1)]
PNG
media_image4.png
405
300
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez Romero US 11,920,559 in view of Zou US 2018/0105235, Huang US 6,447,208, Aubault US 10,174,744 and Robinson US 2020/0010155, alternately also in view of Vandenworm US 10,300,993.
Regarding claim 13, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang and Aubault, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Vazquez Romero does not teach that the platform comprises one or more devices suited to generate electric power through the conversion of marine energy. Robinson teaches a floating platform which comprises one or more devices 4, 16 suited to generate electric power through the conversion of marine energy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the platform of Vazquez Romero with a marine energy generation devices as taught by Robinson in order to generate more power and increase the overall output of the platform.
Regarding claim 14, Vazquez Romero, Zou, Huang, Aubault and Robinson, together or also in view of Vandenworm, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Robinson also teaches that said one or more devices 4, 16 for the generation of electric power are arranged along said outer edge of said load-bearing support base 6, 13. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the devices around the outer edge in order to better balance the platform or free up the center space, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case:
The applicant argues that Vasquez Romero teaches that the central column is less stiff than the outer columns. While the applicant does not connect this argument to a claim limitation, the examiner responds that this does not indicate that the central column has no stiffness, or that the outer columns are not more stiff.
The applicant argues that Zou does not teach internal reinforcements within the columns. Zou is not relied upon for this feature, and is instead referenced for the teaching of secondary connection arms.
The applicant argues that Huang does not teach central reinforcements for a central body. Huang is not relied upon for this feature, and is instead referenced for the teaching of a non-symmetrical, right triangle base.
The applicant argues that Dagher teaches a different keystone structure and mooring at the bottom of the base. Dagher is not relied upon for these features, and is instead referenced for the teaching of chambers within the base.
These references all pertain to floating energy generation platforms, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand their teachings to be compatible.
The applicant argues that while Huang explicitly teaches a right triangle configuration (“Preferably, the triangle is an equilateral triangle, but other triangular arrangements are anticipated as well such as isosceles triangles, right triangles or general triangle,” column 5, lines 33-36), Huang actually teaches away from it, because it also teaches other configurations. The examiner responds that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Huang specifically teaches that “Non-symmetrical column arrangements may be less sensitive to some types of regularly repeating Specification or periodic forces” (column 5, lines 28-30), teaching specific benefits of a right triangle base.
In regard to the drawing objection, the applicant argues that “the claimed angle greater than 60° is adequately supported by the present drawings and specification.” While the examiner agrees that the disclosure enables such an angle and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this configuration based on the description, 37 CFR 1.83(a) requires that all claimed limitations must be depicted in the figures. As detailed above, the figures depict an equilateral triangle, meaning that the angle is exactly 60°, not the recited “greater than 60°.”
Where the applicant argues that “figure 2 does not merely depict an equilateral triangle…but rather depicts a ‘substantially arrow-shaped base,’” the examiner replies that these descriptors are not mutually exclusive. Figure 2 shows a base which is both arrow-shaped and an equilateral triangle, which does not have an angle α greater than 60°.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hashimoto US 10,041,469 teaches a floating energy platform with moorings connected at the top of the vertical bodies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights