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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/30/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gad WO 2020/043256 in view of Fernandez Gomez US 9,890,510.
Regarding claim 10, Gad teaches an operations and maintenance arrangement for floating wind turbines, the operations and maintenance arrangement comprising:
a floating sub-structure 104 (foundation can be floating- page 8, lines 28-33) on which at least one wind turbine unit is situated;
a service operation vessel 100;
a portable crane 300;
the floating sub-structure having an interface 400 capable of receiving and fixedly locking the crane to the sub-structure, the service operation vessel having a ship crane 332 capable of lifting the portable crane from the vessel and onto the sub-structure; and
a support 124 to receive components to be installed on the wind turbine.
PNG
media_image1.png
291
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Gad Figure 3
Gad does not teach that the support comprises an interface to mate and fixedly lock with an interface on the floating sub-structure. Fernandez Gomez teaches an operations and maintenance arrangement for floating wind turbines, the operations and maintenance arrangement comprising a support 14 to receive components 7 to be installed on the wind turbine, the support having an interface 21, 18 to mate and fixedly lock with an interface on the floating sub-structure 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
299
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Fernandez Gomez Figure 9
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the operations and maintenance arrangement as taught by Gad with a separate support which can be attached to the floating sub-structure as taught by Fernandez Gomez in order to free up deck space on the operation vessel during installation, or enable installation to continue in the absence of the operation vessel by locally storing components.
Regarding claim 14, Gad and Fernandez Gomez teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Gad teaches that the floating sub-structure comprises a pontoon with interfaces to receive the portable crane and (as modified) the support, but does not teach that the floating sub-structure comprises at least two pontoons. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the support as separate pontoons in order to simplify manufacturing or provide redundancy, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. As modified into separate pontoons, each pontoon has an interface to receive a respective one of the portable crane and the support.
Claims 10, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez Gomez US 9,890,510 in view of Gad WO 2020/043256.
Regarding claim 10, Fernandez Gomez teaches an operations and maintenance arrangement for floating wind turbines, the operations and maintenance arrangement comprising:
a floating sub-structure 1’ on which at least one wind turbine unit 16 is situated; and
a support 14 to receive components 7, 16 to be installed on the wind turbine, the support having an interface 21, 18 to mate and fixedly lock with an interface on the floating sub-structure.
Fernandez Gomez does not teach a service operation vessel; a portable crane; or the floating sub-structure having an interface capable of receiving and fixedly locking the crane to the sub-structure, the service operation vessel having a ship crane capable of lifting the portable crane from the vessel and onto the sub-structure. Gad teaches an operations and maintenance arrangement for floating wind turbines, the operations and maintenance arrangement comprising:
a floating sub-structure 104 (foundation can be floating- page 8, lines 28-33) on which at least one wind turbine unit is situated;
a service operation vessel 100;
a portable crane 300;
the floating sub-structure having an interface 400 capable of receiving and fixedly locking the crane to the sub-structure, the service operation vessel having a ship crane 332 capable of lifting the portable crane from the vessel and onto the sub-structure; and
a support 124 to receive components to be installed on the wind turbine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the operations and maintenance arrangement as taught by Fernandez Gomez with a service operation vessel and a portable crane that can be attached to the floating platform by a crane on the vessel as taught by Gad in order to simplify the use of a crane during construction.
Regarding claim 14, Fernandez Gomez and Gad teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Fernandez Gomez teaches that the floating sub-structure comprises a pontoon with interfaces to receive the portable crane (as modified) and the support, but does not teach that the floating sub-structure comprises at least two pontoons. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the support as separate pontoons in order to simplify manufacturing or provide redundancy, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. As modified into separate pontoons, each pontoon has an interface to receive a respective one of the portable crane and the support.
Regarding claim 17, Fernandez Gomez and Gad teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Fernandez Gomez also teaches that the received components are wind turbine blades or gear units (see figure 15).
Claims 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez Gomez US 9,890,510 in view of Gad WO 2020/043256 and Kastrup US 10,890,163.
Regarding claim 11, Fernandez Gomez and Gad teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Fernandez Gomez does not explicitly teach that the support comprises at least one set of cradles to receive at least one wind turbine blade. Kastrup teaches a set of cradles 10, 20 to receive wind turbine blades 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the supports of Fernandez Gomez with blade cradles as taught by Kastrup in order to enable the supports to hold a wider range of assembly components.
Regarding claim 12, Fernandez Gomez, Gad and Kastrup teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Kastrup also teaches that at least three wind turbine blades 1 are stacked in cradles 10, 20 on the support. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the supports of Fernandez Gomez with blade cradles as taught by Kastrup in order to enable the supports to hold a wider range of assembly components, and to hold at least three stacked blades in order to better utilize space on the platform.
Regarding claim 13, Fernandez Gomez and Gad teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Fernandez Gomez does not explicitly teach that the support comprises a truss beam. Kastrup teaches a set of cradles 10, 20 to receive wind turbine blades 1 which comprises a truss beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the supports of Fernandez Gomez with blade cradles comprising a truss beam as taught by Kastrup in order to enable the supports to rigidly hold a wider range of assembly components.
Regarding claim 17, Fernandez Gomez and Gad teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. In an alternate interpretation, Fernandez Gomez does not explicitly teach that the received components are wind turbine blades or gear units. Kastrup teaches a set of cradles 10, 20 to receive wind turbine blades 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the supports of Fernandez Gomez with blade cradles as taught by Kastrup in order to enable the supports to hold a wider range of assembly components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Loeken US 12,157,545 teaches an offshore platform that can be assembled by cranes mounted to the floating pontoons.
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