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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 7-17 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Loken et al (WO 2020/167137; cited by Applicant). With respect to claims 1, 10, Loken et al disclose the claimed method of assembling a floating offshore wind vessel including transferring a plurality of wind vessel sub-components to a first offshore location (Figures 40-41), assembly a first portion of a wind vessel on a semi-submersible vessel at a first offshore location (page 74, lines 3-25), assembling a second portion of the wind vessel on the first portion at the first offshore location to form a completed wind vessel (page 75, lines 5-16), partially submerging the semi-submersible vessel to float at least the first portion of the wind vessel (page 74, lines 9-12) and transferring the completed wind vessel from the first offshore location to a second offshore location (page 75, lines 15-16). With respect to claim 3, note Loken et al, page 75, lines 8-14. With respect to claim 7, note Loken et al, Figure 48, floating dry dock 401. With respect to claim 8, note Loken et al, Figure 48, jack up rig. With respect to claim 9, note Loken et al, page 74, lines 20-25. With respect to claim 11, note Loken et al, page 74, lines 26-33. With respect to claim 12, note Loken et al, page 75, lines 9-18; Figure 50. With respect to claim 13, note Loken et al, Figure 50, blades on the deck. With respect to claim 14, note Loken et al, page 75, line 16. With respect to claims 15-16, note Loken et al, page 74, lines 20-33, see use of jack up rig. With respect to claim 17, note Loken et al, floating wind turbines. With respect to claim 19, note Loken et al, page 74, lines 3-18, page 75 lines 8-16; Figure 48. With respect to claims 20-21, note Loken et al, page 75, lines 8-16. With respect to claim 22, note Loken et al, page 96, lines 6-13, ballast system in the floater.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loken et al (WO 2020/167137; cited by Applicant) in view of Viselli et al (WO 2016/138088; cited by Applicant). With respect to claim 2, Loken et al do not disclose the claimed method of the second portion of the wind vessel being attached to the first portion of the wind vessel on the semi-submersible vessel. Viselli et al teach the method of a second portion of the wind vessel being attached to a first portion of the wind vessel on a semi-submersible vessel (Figures 8A-10A; semi-submersible platform 100). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Loken et al with the method of the second portion of the wind vessel being attached to the first portion of the wind vessel on the semi-submersible vessel as taught by Viselli et al with a high likelihood of success for ease of assembly and lowered manufacturing cost. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. It is note that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing multi-million-dollar huge offshore structures would have many years of experience in the art and have wide knowledge of such structures and have advanced degrees.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loken et al (WO 2020/167137; cited by Applicant). With respect to claims 4-6, 18, Loken et al do not disclose towing to an offshore wind farm of greater depth. It would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method of Loken et al include towing to an offshore wind farm of greater depth including the range of depth with a high likelihood of success for ease of assembly and lowered manufacturing cost via assembling in shallower water and towing to deeper water. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. It is note that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing multi-million-dollar huge offshore structures would have many years of experience in the art and have wide knowledge of such structures and have advanced degrees.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Westergaard (US 9022691) shows an installing method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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, Samuel J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615