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 .
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.
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 1-32 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.
Claim 1 recites “being formed substantially of concrete”, where “substantially” is a term of degree that the Specification lacks any standard for measuring the degrees intended, and is therefore unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). Similarly, Claim 2 recites “substantially triangular,” Claim 3 recites “substantially straight,” and Claim 31 recites “substantially vertically” which are unclear for the reasoning parallel to claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the phrase "for example" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the first, second, and third columns have a cylindrical shape”, and the phrasing “cylindrical shape” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Plainly, it is unclear how much a shape can deviate from cylindrical and still be considered “a cylindrical shape.” For example, instant figures 1-4 show a first column 110 with a cylindrical first part 110a and a frustoconical second part 110b, and it is unclear if a frustoconical shape is included in the phrasing “a cylindrical shape.”
Claim 23 recites “integrally formed first, second and third columns substantially of concrete,” which is unclear first, by the reasoning parallel to claim 1 above; and second, the phrase “substantially of concrete” appears to be a sentence fragment and/or contains a grammatical error (e.g., missing a verb).
Claim 25 recites “being formed substantially of metal”, which is unclear by the reasoning parallel to claim 1 above.
Claim 26 recites the phrase "for example" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (US 2019/061884); and/or Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (WO 2014/031009); and/or Claims 1-5, 7, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (WO 2013/040871); and/or Claims 1-4, 6-7, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (ES 2387342).
The current application is related to PCT/NO2022/050183 and the current claims are substantially similar in scope to the corresponding PCT claims. By adopting and incorporating herein by reference the explanations of the closest prior art as set forth in the Search Report, 1 the examiner meets the burdens of 35 U.S.C. 132(a)2 [e.g., insomuch as the reasons for rejection and references are stated and the Search Report provides such information as may be useful in judging the propriety of continuing the prosecution of this application] and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2)3 [e.g., insomuch as the explanations of the Search Report are sufficient to make the pertinence of each reference apparent]. See the copy of the Search Report filed in this current application on 01/30/2024.
Claims 25-26, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fyfe (US 2013/0183163).
Regarding the claims, Fyfe discloses the following:
25. (Currently Amended) A support member (107) for connecting a wind turbine tower (106) to a structure (104), comprising: a hollow elongate member (107) comprising a lesser diameter end and a greater diameter end (fig. 4), the lesser diameter end comprising a wind turbine tower (106) connection arrangement (fig. 4), and the greater diameter end comprising a structure (104) connection arrangement (fig. 4); the hollow elongate member (107) being formed substantially of metal (i.e., by paras. 22, 48).
26. (Currently Amended) The support member of claim 25, wherein the hollow elongate member (107) is frustoconical (para. 25) and/or comprises a frustoconical portion, for example wherein the hollow elongate member comprises two substantially cylindrical portions forming the greater diameter end and lesser diameter ends, respectively, and a frustoconical portion therebetween.
29. (Currently Amended) A concrete floating wind turbine platform having at least one column (104) integrally formed with a pontoon base and a wind turbine tower (106) fixed to the at least one column (104) via a support member (107) according to claim 25.
Claims 25, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dagher et al. (US 2013/0233231).
Regarding the claims, Dagher discloses the following:
25. (Currently Amended) A support member for connecting a wind turbine tower to a structure (intended use), comprising: a hollow elongate member (14) comprising (para. 85) a lesser diameter end (D2, including 14T-14B) and a greater diameter end (D1, including 14A-14T), the lesser diameter end (D2) comprising a wind turbine tower connection arrangement (16), and the greater diameter end comprising a structure connection arrangement (18); the hollow elongate member (14) being formed substantially of metal (steel, para. 84).
27. (Currently Amended) The support member of claim 25, wherein the structure connection arrangement (16) comprises an inward-facing flange or an outward-facing flange (fig. 2).
28. (Currently Amended) The support member of claim 27, wherein the inward-facing or outward-facing flange (14F) is configured to support a cable head having post-tension cables anchored therein (R).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2014/031009), in view of Fyfe (US 2013/0183163).
The prior art does not disclose the limitations of claims 8-9.
Fyfe teaches a frustoconical section (107) interconnects the float body (104) and the upper column (106). The combination of the prior art would have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.4
The limitations of claims 8-10 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fyfe (US 2013/0183163), in view of Dagher et al. (US 2013/0233231), as evidenced by Holford (US 3,977,344).
Fyfe does not disclose all the limitations of claims 30-32.
However, the use of post-tensioned cables extending through modular, floatable units of a concrete structure were well-known in the art, as evidenced by Holford. Dagher teaches the use of a flange (e.g., see conventional connection joint 16 of fig. 2 comprising bolted flanges 12F, 14F), post-tension cables or rods (R and/or 225, e.g. figs. 2, 6A-6B) anchored at the greater-diameter end (fig. 6B), coupling a plurality of sections (220) via a post-tensioning cable (225; para. 110), and a grout layer (para. 110). The combination of the prior art would have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Thereafter, the limitations of claims 30-32 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See MPEP 1893.03(e)(II) which permits the examiner to adopt any portion or all of any report on patentability of the IPEA or ISA that would be relevant to U.S. practice, e.g., explanations of prior art, etc.
235 U.S.C.132(a): Whenever, on examination, any claim for a patent is rejected, or any objection or requirement made, the Director shall notify the applicant thereof, stating the reasons for such rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of his application; and if after receiving such notice, the applicant persists in his claim for a patent, with or without amendment, the application shall be re-examined. No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. [emphasis added]
3 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2): In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified. [emphasis added]
4 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)