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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 13-21 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-12 have been canceled. This communication is a final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 11/19/2025.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 13-14 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Number 2020/0032473 by Berenguer.
Regarding claim 13, Berenguer discloses a floating offshore structure comprising:
a plurality of columns (towers 1); and
a plurality of protruding members installed, respectively, at the lower ends of each of the columns (base 2 comprises a plurality of protruding members protruding from each tower 1);
wherein the columns define vertices of a polygonal shape being formed by an imaginary line connecting the vertices (Figures 1-3 show the columns defining the vertices of a triangle);
wherein each of the protruding members has a shape extending both along the perimeter and in an inward direction toward a center of the floating offshore structure (see base 2 in Figure 1), and
wherein a volume of each protruding member gradually increases in the inward direction from an outside of the polygonal shape to an inside of the polygonal shape (Figures 1-3 shows base 2 increasing in width and volume in the inward direction from the outside to the inside).
Regarding claim 14 (dependent on claim 13), Berenguer discloses a protruding length of each of the protruding members is less than or equal to a thickness of a fender used when the columns berth a quay wall. The claim does not positively claim the fender or the thickness of the fender, and berthing the columns to a quay wall is an intended use of the structure that does not further limit the structure. Base 2 of Berenguer can have a length less than or equal to a thickness of a fender depending on the fender used.
Regarding claim 19 (dependent on claim 13), Berenguer discloses a cross-sectional area in which the protruding members protrude outwardly from the polygonal shape is smaller than the cross-sectional area in which the protruding members protrudes inwardly from the polygonal shape. Figures 1-3 shows base 2 having a smaller cross sectional area towards the outer ends and a greater cross sectional area in the sections protruding inwardly from the towers.
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 13), Berenguer discloses the protruding members have a shape in which the volume gradually increases from an end protruding outward from the polygonal shape to an end protruding inward from the polygonal shape Figures 1-3 shows the cross sectional area and volume of base 2 increasing from the outer ends of base 2 inward.
Regarding claim 21 (dependent on claim 13), Berenguer discloses the floating offshore structure of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above); and a power generation structure installed on the floating offshore structure (wind turbine 14).
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 15, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Number 2020/0032473 by Berenguer in view of US Patent Number 9,394,035 to Dagher.
Regarding claim 15 (dependent on claim 13), Berenguer discloses a center column disposed inside the polygonal shape formed by the columns (supported superstructure 14 in Figure 6);
Berenguer does not disclose a main pontoon installed at a lower end of the center column. However, this limitation is taught by Dagher. Dagher discloses a floating wind turbine platform, column 2, lines 6-9 disclose “The center column and outer columns are made of concrete and are buoyant with sufficient buoyancy to help support a wind turbine tower”, these buoyant columns are referred to throughout the disclosure as pontoons. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Berenguer using the teachings from Dagher to use known ways to provide buoyance to the platform as needed.
Regarding claim 17 (dependent on claim 15)¸ Berenguer and Dagher do not disclose each of the protruding members has an arc shape in the regions near the center column. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the base of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. 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 18 (dependent on claim 15), Berenguer discloses cross sections parallel to a sea level of the columns have polygonal shapes. The Figures show the columns 1 having hexagonal cross sections.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Berenguer in view of Dagher, in further view of US Patent Application Number 2012/0103244 by Gong.
Regarding claim 16 (dependent on claim 15), Berenguer does not disclose a plurality of braces, wherein some of the braces connect each of the protruding members, and some of the braces connect the protruding members and the main pontoon. However, this limitation is taught by Gong. Gong discloses a floating wind turbine platform, and Figure 4 shows a variety of tension cables connecting the outer columns and the center column. Gong suggests that “The tensioned cable system including upper, lower, and diagonal tensioned cables to connect the column, the column base, and the tower to reduce the bending moments and improve stability, strength and dynamic performance of the hull structure. It would thus be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Berenguer using the teachings from Gong in order to reduce the bending moments and improve stability, strength and dynamic performance of the structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Berenguer does not disclose a plurality of protruding members because Berenguer discloses a single base, merriam-webster.com defines “member” as “a part of a whole”, and base 2 of Berenguer has a plurality of parts that extend from each tower 1. Furthermore, it is unclear why the base of Berenguer being made up of a cellular caisson suggests that the volume of each protruding member gradually increases in the inward direction, as Figure 4 shows that base 2 has the same height, while Figures 1-3 shows that the width of these parts increase in the inward direction, and volume is a function of length * width * height.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the advantageous effects of claim 1 are moot because they’re drawn to limitations that are not claimed.
Regarding the argument that the examiner provides no rational for combining the tensioned system of Gong into the base of Berenguer, as quoted by the applicant, the examiner explicitly listed reducing bending moments and improving stability, strength, and dynamic performance of the structure as rationales for the combination, and all of these rationales were suggested by Gong, as quoted by the office action.
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 MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642