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 .
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment/request for reconsideration dated 21 January 2026 (hereinafter “Reply”).
Claim(s) 1-36 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 5, 13, 21, 29, is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The objection(s) to the specification is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
The objection(s) to the drawings is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
The objection(s) to the claim(s) is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
The rejection of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ferrao, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 15, first paragraph of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following feature(s) of claim 1: a side of the horizontal bracing is streamlined.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive because Ferrao discloses the connectors may be in the form of cylindrical beams (see para. 0030). Thus, the horizontal bracing of Ferrao (122a-c, Fig. 3) includes either a rectangular or cylindrical cross-sectional shape. Therefore, a side of the horizontal bracing of Ferrao is streamlined when the beam is of the cylindrical shape due to the edge transitions being smoother than for a rectangular shape.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrao in view of further cited art:
The rejection(s) is/are maintained due to dependence from claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 9-12, 14-15, 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrao in view of Aubault, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 15, first paragraph of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following feature(s) of claim 9: a side of the horizontal bracing is streamlined.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive because Ferrao discloses the connectors may be in the form of cylindrical beams (see para. 0030). Thus, the horizontal bracing of Ferrao (122a-c, Fig. 3) includes either a rectangular or cylindrical cross-sectional shape. Therefore, a side of the horizontal bracing of Ferrao is streamlined when the beam is of the cylindrical shape due to the edge transitions being smoother than for a rectangular shape.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ferrao in view of further cited art:
The rejection(s) is/are maintained due to dependence from claim 9.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 17-20, 22-24, 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrao in view of Aubault and Boo, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 15, first paragraph of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following feature(s) of claim 17: a side of the horizontal bracing is streamlined.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive because Ferrao discloses the connectors may be in the form of cylindrical beams (see para. 0030). Thus, the horizontal bracing of Ferrao (122a-c, Fig. 3) includes either a rectangular or cylindrical cross-sectional shape. Therefore, a side of the horizontal bracing of Ferrao is streamlined when the beam is of the cylindrical shape due to the edge transitions being smoother than for a rectangular shape.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 25-28, 30-32, 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrao in view of Fei, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 15, first paragraph of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following feature(s) of claim 25: a side of the horizontal bracing is streamlined.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive because Ferrao discloses the connectors may be in the form of cylindrical beams (see para. 0030). Thus, the horizontal bracing of Ferrao (122a-c, Fig. 3) includes either a rectangular or cylindrical cross-sectional shape. Therefore, a side of the horizontal bracing of Ferrao is streamlined when the beam is of the cylindrical shape due to the edge transitions being smoother than for a rectangular shape.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240308631 to Ferrao et al. (hereinafter “FERRAO”) as evidenced by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160369780 to Aubault et al. (hereinafter “AUBAULT”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
FERRAO discloses:
A floater structure, comprising:
a main column (106a, Fig. 2);
two off columns (106b, 106c), each the off column is connected to any other the main column and the off column via a horizontal bracing (122a-c, Fig. 3); and a pontoon (112a-c) is connected to the main column and the two off columns;
wherein shape of the pontoon is a triangle (see Figs. 2-3), and three corners of the triangle are polygon (see Fig. 2), at least one point of bottom edge of the main column and the two off columns is tangent to the edges of three corners of the plate-shaped triangular pontoon (see Figs. 2-3);
wherein a side of the horizontal bracing is streamlined (para. 0030: the connectors may be in the form of cylindrical beams, wherein it is known that beams with circular cross section, i.e. beams having smoothed edge transitions, minimize drag resistance when compared to similar rectangular sections as evidenced by AUBAULT para. 0045).
(B) Regarding Claim 2:
FERRAO further discloses:
the main column (106a, Figs. 2-3) is selected from a polygonal prism according to the shape of the three corners of the triangle.
(C) Regarding Claim 3:
FERRAO further discloses:
the off column (106b-c, Figs. 2-3) is selected from a polygonal prism according to the shape of the three corners of the triangle.
(D) Regarding Claim 4:
FERRAO further discloses:
the polygonal prism is a hexagonal prism (Figs. 2-3).
(E) Regarding Claim 6:
FERRAO further discloses:
outer edge of the pontoon (112a-c, Figs. 2-3) is configured along tangential direction parallel to the main column (106a) or the off column (106b-c).
(F) Regarding Claim 7:
FERRAO further discloses:
a wind turbine is further configured on the main column (see Fig. 5b, wherein the wind turbine tower extends from the column 106a, but is not numbered, and para. 0045: so as to offset the weight of the wind turbine tower).
(G) Regarding Claim 33:
FERRAO further discloses:
the polygonal prism is a hexagonal prism (Figs. 2-3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERRAO, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200269960 to Boo et al. (hereinafter “BOO”).
(A) Regarding Claim 8:
FERRAO teaches:
the main column, the off column, and the pontoon have ballast tanks (see Figs. 6a-c and paragraph 0047), wherein the ballast weight is variable (paragraph 0052).
However, the difference between FERRAO and the claimed invention is that FERRAO does not explicitly teach at least one pump is configured on the main column, the off column and the pontoon.
BOO teaches:
Pumps are connected to valves 1020 that open and close to transfer water from the ballast tanks of the main column, off columns and pontoon (paragraph 0102: the ballast system including pumps connected to respective valves are located on the pontoons 301, outer columns 101 and center column 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pump and valve system on the pontoon, main column and off columns, as taught by BOO, in order to vary ballast liquid and thereby achieve the predictable result of changing the buoyancy of the floating structure (BOO paragraph 0102).
Claim(s) 9-12, 14-15 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERRAO, as evidenced by AUBAULT, in view of AUBAULT.
(A) Regarding Claim 9:
FERRAO teaches:
A floater structure, comprising:
a main column (106a, Fig. 2);
two off columns (106b, 106c), each the off column is connected to any other the main column and the off column via a horizontal bracing (122a-c, Fig. 3);
a pontoon (112a-c) is connected to the main column and the two off columns;
wherein shape of the pontoon is a triangle (see Figs. 2-3), and three corners of the triangle are polygon (see Fig. 2), at least one point of bottom edge of the main column and the two off columns is tangent to the edges of three corners of the plate-shaped triangular pontoon (see Figs. 2-3);
wherein a side of the horizontal bracing is streamlined (para. 0030: the connectors may be in the form of cylindrical beams, wherein it is known that beams with circular cross section, i.e. beams having smoothed edge transitions, minimize drag resistance when compared to similar rectangular sections as evidenced by AUBAULT para. 0045).
However, the difference between FERRAO and the claimed invention is that FERRAO does not explicitly teach diameter of cross-section area of the main column is more than any of the off column.
AUBAULT teaches:
The diameter of the main column (605, Fig. 6) is larger than the off columns (610, 615).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the main column diameter larger than the diameter of each off column, as taught by AUBAULT, in order to size the columns according to project specifics and thereby achieve the predictable result of having an optimal structural configuration (AUBAULT para. 0060).
(B) Regarding Claim 10:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the main column (FERRAO 106a, Figs. 2-3) is selected from a polygonal prism according to the shape of the three corners of the triangle.
(C) Regarding Claim 11:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the off column (FERRAO 106b-c, Figs. 2-3) is selected from a polygonal prism according to the shape of the three corners of the triangle.
(D) Regarding Claim 12:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the polygonal prism is a hexagonal prism (FERRAO Figs. 2-3).
(E) Regarding Claim 14:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
outer edge of the pontoon (FERRAO 112a-c, Figs. 2-3) is configured along tangential direction parallel to the main column (FERRAO 106a) or the off column (FERRAO 106b-c).
(F) Regarding Claim 15:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
a wind turbine is further configured on the main column (FERRAO see Fig. 5b, wherein the wind turbine tower extends from the column 106a, but is not numbered, and para. 0045: so as to offset the weight of the wind turbine tower).
(G) Regarding Claim 34:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the polygonal prism is a hexagonal prism (FERRAO Figs. 2-3).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modified FERRAO, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of BOO.
(A) Regarding Claim 16:
Modified FERRAO teaches:
the main column, the off column, and the pontoon have ballast tanks (see Figs. 6a-c and paragraph 0047), wherein the ballast weight is variable (paragraph 0052).
However, the difference between Modified FERRAO and the claimed invention is that Modified FERRAO does not explicitly teach at least one pump is configured on the main column, the off column and the pontoon.
BOO teaches:
Pumps are connected to valves 1020 that open and close to transfer water from the ballast tanks of the main column, off columns and pontoon (paragraph 0102: the ballast system including pumps connected to respective valves are located on the pontoons 301, outer columns 101 and center column 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pump and valve system on the pontoon, main column and off columns, as taught by BOO, in order to vary ballast liquid and thereby achieve the predictable result of changing the buoyancy of the floating structure (BOO paragraph 0102).
Claim(s) 17-20, 22-24 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERRAO, as evidenced by AUBAULT, in view of AUBAULT and BOO.
(A) Regarding Claim 17:
FERRAO teaches:
A floater structure, comprising:
a main column (106a, Fig. 2);
two off columns (106b, 106c), each the off column is connected to any other the main column and the off column via a horizontal bracing (122a-c, Fig. 3);
a pontoon (112a-c) is connected to the main column and the two off columns;
wherein shape of the pontoon is a triangle (see Figs. 2-3), and three corners of the triangle are polygon (see Fig. 2), at least one point of bottom edge of the main column and the two off columns is tangent to the edges of three corners of the plate-shaped triangular pontoon (see Figs. 2-3);
wherein a side of the horizontal bracing is streamlined (para. 0030: the connectors may be in the form of cylindrical beams, wherein it is known that beams with circular cross section, i.e. beams having smoothed edge transitions, minimize drag resistance when compared to similar rectangular sections as evidenced by AUBAULT para. 0045).
However, the difference between FERRAO and the claimed invention is that FERRAO does not explicitly teach diameter of cross-section area of the main column is more than any of the off column.
AUBAULT teaches:
The diameter of the main column (605, Fig. 6) is larger than the off columns (610, 615).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the main column diameter larger than the diameter of each off column, as taught by AUBAULT, in order to size the columns according to project specifics and thereby achieve the predictable result of having an optimal structural configuration (AUBAULT para. 0060)
However, the difference between Modified FERRAO and the claimed invention is that Modified FERRAO does not explicitly teach at least one pump is configured on the main column, the off column and the pontoon.
BOO teaches:
Pumps are connected to valves 1020 that open and close to transfer water from the ballast tanks of the main column, off columns and pontoon (paragraph 0102: the ballast system including pumps connected to respective valves are located on the pontoons 301, outer columns 101 and center column 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pump and valve system on the pontoon, main column and off columns, as taught by BOO, in order to vary ballast liquid and thereby achieve the predictable result of changing the buoyancy of the floating structure (BOO paragraph 0102).
(B) Regarding Claim 18:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the main column (FERRAO 106a, Figs. 2-3) is selected from a polygonal prism according to the shape of the three corners of the triangle.
(C) Regarding Claim 19:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the off column (FERRAO 106b-c, Figs. 2-3) is selected from a polygonal prism according to the shape of the three corners of the triangle.
(D) Regarding Claim 20:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the polygonal prism is a hexagonal prism (FERRAO Figs. 2-3).
(E) Regarding Claim 22:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
outer edge of the pontoon (FERRAO 112a-c, Figs. 2-3) is configured along tangential direction parallel to the main column (FERRAO 106a) or the off column (FERRAO 106b-c).
(F) Regarding Claim 23:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
a wind turbine is further configured on the main column (FERRAO see Fig. 5b, wherein the wind turbine tower extends from the column 106a, but is not numbered, and para. 0045: so as to offset the weight of the wind turbine tower).
(G) Regarding Claim 24:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
at least one pump is configured on the main column, the off column, and the pontoon (BOO paragraph 0102: the ballast system including pumps connected to respective valves are located on the pontoons 301, outer columns 101 and center column 201).
(H) Regarding Claim 35:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the polygonal prism is a hexagonal prism (FERRAO Figs. 2-3).
Claim(s) 25-28, 30-32 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FERRAO, as evidenced by AUBAULT, in view of CN 107539433 to Fei et al. (hereinafter “FEI”).
(A) Regarding Claim 25:
FERRAO teaches:
A floater structure, comprising:
a main column (106a, Fig. 2);
two off columns (106b, 106c), each the off column is connected to any other the main column and the off column via a horizontal bracing (122a-c, Fig. 3);
a pontoon (112a-c) is connected to the main column and the two off columns;
wherein shape of the pontoon is a triangle (see Figs. 2-3), and three corners of the triangle are polygon (see Fig. 2), at least one point of bottom edge of the main column and the two off columns is tangent to the edges of three corners of the plate-shaped triangular pontoon (see Figs. 2-3);
wherein a side of the horizontal bracing is streamlined (para. 0030: the connectors may be in the form of cylindrical beams, wherein it is known that beams with circular cross section, i.e. beams having smoothed edge transitions, minimize drag resistance when compared to similar rectangular sections as evidenced by AUBAULT para. 0045).
However, the difference between FERRAO and the claimed invention is that FERRAO does not explicitly teach a wave suppression area extended and configured on connected part between the pontoon and the main column and the two off columns.
FEI teaches:
A wave suppression area extended and configured on connected part (6, Fig. 10) between the pontoon (12)and the main column (11) and the two off columns (not numbered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a wave suppression area extended and configured on connected part between the pontoon and the main column and the two off columns, as taught by FEI, in order to provide a heave plate and thereby achieve the predictable result of increased damping and reduced heave response (see FEI Abstract and Fig. 10).
(B) Regarding Claim 26:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the main column (FERRAO 106a, Figs. 2-3) is selected from a polygonal prism according to the shape of the three corners of the triangle.
(C) Regarding Claim 27:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the off column (FERRAO 106b-c, Figs. 2-3) is selected from a polygonal prism according to the shape of the three corners of the triangle.
(D) Regarding Claim 28:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the polygonal prism is a hexagonal prism (FERRAO Figs. 2-3).
(E) Regarding Claim 30:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
outer edge of the pontoon (FERRAO 112a-c, Figs. 2-3) is configured along tangential direction parallel to the main column (FERRAO 106a) or the off column (FERRAO 106b-c).
(F) Regarding Claim 31:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
a wind turbine is further configured on the main column (FERRAO see Fig. 5b, wherein the wind turbine tower extends from the column 106a, but is not numbered, and para. 0045: so as to offset the weight of the wind turbine tower).
(G) Regarding Claim 32:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
at least one pump is configured on the main column, the off column, and the pontoon (BOO paragraph 0102: the ballast system including pumps connected to respective valves are located on the pontoons 301, outer columns 101 and center column 201).
(H) Regarding Claim 36:
Modified FERRAO further teaches:
the polygonal prism is a hexagonal prism (FERRAO Figs. 2-3).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 PM 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 Courtney Heinle can be reached on 571-270-3508. 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights