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 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.
Claims 2, 8 and 17 are 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.
As to claim 2, the recitation of “further comprising a base structure” is redundant since “a base structure” is already positively recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ballast confiner" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 is rejected because it recites “A transportation method”; however, there appears to be no positively recited method steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2643210 herein referred to as Bussemaker.
As to claim 1, Bussemaker discloses (see para [0050] - [0066]; figures 1,2,8,9) a gravity base (1) for supporting a superstructure such as an offshore wind turbine (para [0064], [0066]), comprising a ballast confiner (float element 3), wherein
the ballast confiner is configured to be filled with a ballast material (para [0051]), wherein the ballast confiner (3) is configured to confine the ballast material on a base structure (foot 5), wherein the base structure (5)
is configured to be arranged on a supporting media (60) and is configured to
be connected to
the superstructure (such as wind turbines or cranes are arranged on the marine structure 1, para [0064]) or
to a support structure (leg 4) which is configured to be arranged between the superstructure and the base structure (5), and wherein the support structure (4) is configured to be connected to the superstructure wherein the ballast confiner
(3) is configured to be structurally independent from the base structure (5), para [0053], [0054, [0062], [0063] according to which the leg 4 and the foot 5 can move freely with respect to the float element 3 and para [0055]-[0057] according to which the float element 3 can leave the leg 4 if the braking devices 9 are not activated.
Insofar as understood, as to claim 2, Bussemaker discloses further comprising the base structure.
As to claim 3, Bussemaker discloses wherein structurally independent entails that the ballast confiner 3 is stable on its own, wherein there is no supporting connection between the ballast confiner and the superstructure and/or between the ballast confiner and the support structure 4 and/or between the ballast confiner and the base structure 5
As to claim 4, Bussemaker discloses wherein structurally independent entails the superstructure or the support structure 4 are mainly supported by components other than the ballast confiner 3.
As to claim 5, Bussemaker discloses wherein the ballast confiner 3 has a diameter larger than the largest horizontal dimension of the base structure, so that the ballast confiner is configured to stand at least partially outside the base structure and is configured to be arranged at least partially on the supporting media 60.
As to claim 6, Bussemaker discloses wherein the ballast confiner 3 is configured to be used independently from the base structure 5 and superstructure for a further function e.g. to anchor a further structure, and/or to provide stability for a further structure, and/or to provide a platform, and/or to act as an artificial reef.
As to claim 11, Bussemaker discloses wherein the ballast confiner 3 in case of a liquid ballast is sealed on the bottom side or its bottom end be sealed to the base structure, e.g. to provide a watertight container.
As to claim 12, Bussemaker discloses wherein e.g. in case of an offshore installation, the diameter of the ballast confiner 3 is larger than the diameter or the largest width of the base structure, 5 wherein the bottom side of the ballast confiner is configured to penetrate into the soil and/or to act as a skirt for the base structure; wherein the skirt is configured to provide protection against scour and extra resistance for the base structure against horizontal loads; wherein the skirt is configured to confine the soil under the base structure and e.g. thus increases the load bearing capacity of the soil.
As to claim 13, Bussemaker discloses wherein e.g. in case of an offshore installation, e.g. to avoid or reduce erosion or scour: an armour layer or a weight in the form of a ring or any other suitable form made of steel, concrete, or any other suitable material is placed on the ballast inside the ballast confiner 3 around the support structure, in order to protect the ballast, and/or an armour layer or a weight in the form of a ring or any other suitable form made of steel, concrete, or any other suitable material is placed around the ballast confiner 3 on the seabed 60.
As to claim 14, Bussemaker discloses wind farm, comprising at least one gravity base 1.
As to claim 15, Bussemaker consequently discloses the deployment method of a gravity base, wherein the gravity base is according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises a step of arranging the gravity base (1) on the supporting media (60).
As to claim 16, Bussemaker inherently discloses a decommissioning method of a gravity base, wherein the gravity base 1 is according to claim 1, comprising one or more of the following steps: removing a ballast; wherein the ballast is removed from the top side of the ballast confiner and/or removed by making an opening in a lower part of the ballast confiner or opening a gate near the lower end of the ballast confiner, transporting a base structure and a ballast confiner e.g. for recycling; wherein the base structure is lifted or floated for removal. If the offshore gravity base structure is to be removed, such steps would be inherent.
As to claim 17, Bussemaker discloses (see figure 1) transportation method wherein the cylindrical components, being the ballast confiners 3 as claimed in are made like truncated cones in order to allow nesting these components inside each other for minimizing the occupied space of the components during storage and transportation and/or facilitating their fabrication.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phuly (US 9,096,985).
As to claim 7, Phuly discloses (see annotated Figure 42) a gravity base for supporting a superstructure such as an offshore wind turbine, comprising a base structure, wherein the base structure is configured to be arranged on a supporting media and is configured to be connected to the superstructure or to a support structure 11 which is configured to be arranged between the superstructure and the base structure, and wherein the support structure is configured to be connected to the superstructure, a ballast 13 arranged on the base structure, wherein the ballast is a non-confined ballast, wherein the base structure and the ballast are independent.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Phuly discloses wherein the ballast 13 is stable without a ballast confiner, wherein the ballast confiner is omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2643210 herein referred to as Bussemaker in view of WO 2010/019050 herein referred to as Meling et al.
As to claim 9, Bussemaker discloses all that is claimed except for the base structure having bulkheads. Meling discloses an offshore structure having a base 5 including bulkheads 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a base comprising bulkheads as disclosed by Meling, since doing so provides the expected benefit of providing a stronger foundation.
As to claim 10, Meling also discloses stiffeners 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide stiffeners as disclosed by Meling, since doing so provides the expected benefit of providing a stronger foundation.
Alternatively, claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2643210 herein referred to as Bussemaker in view of EP 1624137 herein referred to as Guttierez Tenreiro.
As to claim 17, Bussemaker discloses all that is claimed except for the ballast confiners being made with slightly different diameters or make like truncated cones. Guttierez Tenreiro discloses (para [0013]) components of an offshore structure made with slightly different diameters or make like truncated cones. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide slightly different diameters or make like truncated cones, since doing so provides the expected benefit of saving in volume during transport i.e. “paper-cup” style.
Response to Arguments
With respect to claims 1-6 and 9-17, applicant's arguments filed 9/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bussemaker does not disclose wherein the ballast confiner is configured to be structurally independent from the base structure. The examiner maintains that the ballast confiner 3 is structurally independent from the base structure 5. As shown in figures 2a, 2b, and 2c, the ballast confiner 3 is movable on leg 4 and rests on base 5 when ballasted. As such, the ballast confiner 3 is considered structurally independent from the base 5. Furthermore, applicant appears to argue that ballast confiner is structurally dependent on leg 4; however, the claim recites “wherein the ballast confiner is configured to be structurally independent from the base structure” i.e. not the leg.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 9/29/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678