DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 58-59, 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (EP 2 696 123); and/or Claims 67-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (EP 3 303 204); and/or Claims 43-66 and 76-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (EP 2 696 123), in view of (EP 3 303 204); and/or Claims 61-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (EP 2 696 123) and (EP 3 303 204), in view of (US 2015/0246711); and/or Claims 56-57, 60, 66, 75, 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (EP 2 696 123) and (EP 3 303 204), ), in view of (US 2007/0250227).
The current application is related to PCT/NO2022/050278 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 09/09/2024 and/or 01/31/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The thrust of Applicant’s arguments are that Moeller does not disclose the structure of a floating wind turbine; and that the combination of Moeller and Nevado does not suggest a system adapted for compensating a relative movement between the vessel and the floating wind turbine during a pull-in operation. This is not persuasive. First, it appears the characterization of Moeller is in dispute; and second, it appears the scope of the claim construction is in dispute. Regarding Moeller, the disclosure includes offshore wind turbines supported on a floating platform. Second, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific and/or disclosed structures associated with the general functional limitations, as claimed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant case, the claim merely requires the system be “capable of” or “adapted to” perform the recited functions, which is met by the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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]
Prosecution Insights