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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the system “is mainly composed of” a few components. The transitional phrase “mainly composed of” has been interpreted in the same manner as either "consisting of" or "consisting essentially of," depending on the facts of the particular case. See AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Company, 239 F.3d 1239, 1245, 57 USPQ2d 1776, 1780-81 (Fed. Cir. 2001), In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d 1014, 1019-20, 56 USPQ 379, 384 (CCPA 1942) MPEP 2111.03. However, this is not appropriate for this case, as the device must inherently comprise several other components. For the purposes of this action the invention will be interpreted as “comprising” the recited elements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (and therefor also 2) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “An air-liquid dual control anti-rolling control system for a floating offshore wind turbine,” meaning that the floating offshore wind turbine is not positively recited, only the control system. However, claim 1 proceeds to recite limitations pertaining to platform components aside from the control system, such as girders and pontoons. It is unclear if these components are positively recited, or how these recitations limit the recited control system.
Further, claim 2 recites “The air-liquid dual control anti-rolling control system for the floating offshore wind turbine in offshore deep sea according to claim 1, wherein the floating offshore wind turbine is mainly composed of…” again not positively reciting the platform. It is further unclear how these recitations limit the recited control system..
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim, but recites several method/action limitations, such as:
“the battery set supplies power” in line 8.
“data…is inputted” in line 12.
“liquid is filled in the tanks” and “the filling amount is determined” in line 17.
“the control module controls” in line 27.
“work…to generate oscillating flow” in line 36.
It is unclear how such recitations limit the apparatus. For instance, it is unclear if the manner in which the filling amount is determined presents a structural limitation on the device, or if this is merely an intended use.
Claim 1 line 9 recites “the motion measurement module is a sensor containing swing motion data for measuring the floating foundation.” It is unclear how a sensor can “contain” data for “measuring the floating foundation.” Line 11 continues that “the motion data comprises attitudes, angular velocity and frequency,” making it unclear if the module directly measures these values. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the system has sensors to measure these parameters.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pontoon" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 line 5 recites “a pontoon.” It is unclear if this is the same pontoon recited in parent claim 1 line 16.
Claim 2 line 6 recites “box girders.” It is unclear if these are the same box girders recited in claim 2 line 5, or in parent claim 1 lines 3 and 16.
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 and 2 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepreux US 11,267,543 in view of Roddier US 8,471,396, Chen US 6857231, Akselvoll US 2020/0172210 and Minorsky US 2,017,072.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Lepreux Figure 3b)]
PNG
media_image1.png
142
177
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lepreux teaches an air-liquid dual control anti-rolling control system 1 for a floating offshore wind turbine in offshore deep sea, which comprises:
an equipment compartment (wherever the control unit is located) and three closed TLCD loop units, and each TLCD loop unit mainly forms a closed loop by a liquid tank 2, an air tube 5 and a liquid tube 3;
a control unit (as the system utilizes active control- column 5, lines 25-40);
two liquid tanks 2 at each vertex of the structure; two adjacent liquid tanks in two adjacent stand columns are communicated to form a closed loop through the liquid tubes 3 and the air tubes 5; liquid is filled in the liquid tanks and the liquid tubes, and;
each air tube 5 comprises an air-control module; the air-control module is mainly composed of a valve 6; and the opening and closing state is determined by the control module; after the valve is closed, the gas in the air tube cannot flow;
each liquid tube 3 comprises a liquid-control module 4.
Lepreux does not explicitly teach that the equipment compartment is arranged above box girders, that the TLCD is embedded into the structure of a floating foundation, that the air tubes are in the box girders, or that two liquid tanks are installed inside each stand column, forming a cylindrical structure, the liquid tubes are in a/the pontoon. Roddier teaches an anti-rolling control system for a floating offshore wind turbine comprising a measurement 127 and control 123 system, to control and transfer ballast between tanks in columns 102, 103. Roddier also teaches pontoons and girders 115 (see Roddier figure 6). It would have been obvious to modify the system of Lepreux with the overall structure (including tanks in the columns) as taught by Roddier in order to provide a stable, proven mounting system and architecture for the waterborne platform. As modified, two liquid tanks are installed inside each stand column, forming a cylindrical structure. While Lepreux does teach that the air tubes are connected on the upper portion of the tanks (column 8, lines 60-62) and liquid tubes are in the lower portion (column 7, lines 6-9), it is not explicitly taught that the tubes are in the pontoon or girders. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the lower tubes in the pontoons, the upper tubes in the girders, and or the measurement/control unit compartment above the box girders in order to conveniently locate and protect the various components, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
PNG
media_image2.png
350
337
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Roddier Figure 14
Lepreux does not teach that the measurement and control unit comprises a motion measurement module; the motion measurement module is a sensor containing swing motion data for measuring the floating foundation, and the motion data comprises attitudes, angular velocity and frequency; the motion data measured by the motion measurement module is inputted to the control module, and one TLCD loop unit is activated by the control module to work. Roddier teaches an anti-rolling control system for a floating offshore wind turbine comprising a measurement 127 and control 123 system, to control and transfer ballast between tanks in columns 102, 103 actively via pumps 221. Roddier also teaches that the motion measurement module 127 is a sensor containing swing motion data for measuring the floating foundation, and the motion data comprises attitudes, angular velocity and frequency; the motion data measured by the motion measurement module is inputted to the control module, and one TLCD loop unit is activated by the control module to work (column 12 line 34- column 13 line 16). It would have been obvious to modify the system of Lepreux with the measurement and control structure as taught by Roddier in order to actively move ballast in the system and provide better, automatic control.
Lepreux does not explicitly teach that the filling amount of the liquid in the liquid tanks is determined according to the preset natural vibration frequency of liquid columns in the TLCD loop units, or that the liquid-control modules are two reversely installed water-turbine sets; the water-turbine sets have programmable motors, and the rotational speed of the motors is adjusted by the control module; and the two water-turbine sets are configured to work alternately under the instructions of the control module to drive the liquid in the liquid tubes to generate oscillating flow. Chen teaches a TLCD in which that the filling amount of the liquid in the liquid tanks is determined according to the preset natural vibration frequency of liquid columns in the TLCD loop units (column 4, lines 25-44), the liquid-control modules are two reversely installed water-turbine sets 13; the water-turbine sets have a programmable motor 15, and the rotational speed of the motors is adjusted by the control module 20-21; and the two water-turbine sets are configured to work alternately under the instructions of the control module to drive the liquid in the liquid tubes to generate oscillating flow. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Lepreux with the tuned, active-controlled turbine flow system as taught by Chen in order to effectively, actively move ballast in the system and provide better, automatic control.
PNG
media_image3.png
358
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Chen Figure 7
Chen does not teach multiple motors, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add more/individual motors for improved control, longevity or damage tolerance, 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.
Lepreux does not teach that the air-control module comprises an air-turbine set; the air-turbine set converts kinetic energy of gas in the air tube into electrical energy to control the flow speed of the gas, and the generated electrical energy is stored in a storage battery set in the measurement and control unit; the air-turbine set, the control and the storage battery set are connected to form a closed circuit; the control module controls the rotational speed of the air-turbine set by adjusting the resistance value of the air-turbine set with different rotational speeds generates damping of different degrees for the gas flow in the air tube to generate different degrees of obstruction effects on the airflow in the air tube. Akselvoll teaches a vessel stabilization system in which two side tanks 110, 111 are connected with a lower fluid transfer tube 112 and an upper air transfer tube 122, wherein the air tube comprises an air-turbine set 123; the air-turbine set converts kinetic energy of gas in the air tube into electrical energy to control the flow speed of the gas, and the generated electrical energy is stored in a storage battery set 154 in the measurement and control unit; the air-turbine set, the control and the storage battery set are connected to form a closed circuit [0041, 0062]; the control module controls the rotational speed of the air-turbine set by adjusting the resistance value of the air-turbine set with different rotational speeds generates damping of different degrees for the gas flow in the air tube to generate different degrees of obstruction effects on the airflow in the air tube [0042]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Lepreux with air turbines in the air tubes and storage battery as taught by Akselvoll in order to more precisely control air flow in the tubes as well as reclaim power and generate electricity for use elsewhere in the system.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
418
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Akselvoll Figure 2
As modified, the valve is arranged near the air-turbine set, and the storage battery set supplies power for the motion measurement module, the control module and the motors of the water-turbine sets [0041, 0062].
Lepreux does not explicitly teach that control is achieved via slide rheostats. Minorsky teaches a ship stabilizing apparatus in which two side tanks 2, 3 are connected with a lower fluid transfer tube 4 and an upper air transfer tube 10, 11, wherein control of various transfer components is achieved via slide rheostats 146, 149. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Lepreux with rheostat controls as taught by Minorsky in order to utilize a reliable, damage-tolerant control device.
Regarding claim 2, Lepreux, Roddier, Chen, Akselvoll and Minorsky teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Roddier also teaches that the floating offshore wind turbine is mainly composed of a wind turbine structure 111, a floating foundation 115 and a mooring system 131-141; the floating foundation is composed of stand columns 102, 103, a pontoon and box girders 115; the tops of the three stand columns are connected at equal angles by three box girders, and the bottoms of the three stand columns are connected in pairs by the pontoon to form a triangle; the mooring system is connected to the pontoon (at least via other components), and the floating foundation is anchored to a water bottom; and the wind [AltContent: textbox (Figure 5- Roddier Figure 6)]
PNG
media_image5.png
400
261
media_image5.png
Greyscale
turbine structure is installed on one stand column of the floating foundation. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Lepreux with the overall platform structure as taught by Roddier in order to provide a stable, proven mounting system and architecture for the waterborne platform. If the applicant does not agree about the shapes of the pontoons, girders or overall platform, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the pontoons, girders or platforms a box, tube, triangle or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired strength, stress distribution or 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peiffer US 9,879,654 teaches an actively controlled ballast anti-rolling system.
Hort US 2,024,822 and Yoshimura US 5,542,220 teach anti-roll systems that control liquid ballast transfer via upper air tubes.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615