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Claims 21-23 and 25-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/11/25.
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.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borden US 7,453,164.
Regarding claim 41, Borden teaches a wind turbine system comprising:
a floatable vessel 10 configured to float on water, the floatable vessel having a hull extending along a major axis;
a wind turbine 12 mounted to the floatable vessel, the wind turbine comprising:
a plurality of rotor blades 13 configured to convert an airstream to rotational shaft 14 power; and
an electrical generator 16 configured to convert the rotational shaft power of the wind turbine to electrical power;
a hydrogen production system 18 configured to be powered by the electrical generator (column 4, lines 31-35); and
a steering system configured to orient the major axis of the hull approximately perpendicular to a prevailing wind direction during operation of the wind turbine to reduce drift velocity of the floatable vessel in a downwind direction and thereby maintain relative wind speed at the plurality of rotor blades (column 3, lines 4-11).
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 1-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borden US 7,453,164 in view of Dane US 7,789,723.
Regarding claim 1, Borden teaches a wind turbine system comprising:
a floatable vessel 10 configured to move along water in two orientations, wherein the floatable vessel comprises a primary hull 64 extending along a first major axis;
a wind turbine 12 mounted to the floatable vessel, the wind turbine comprising:
a plurality of rotor blades 13 configured to convert an airstream to rotational shaft 14 power; and
an electrical generator 16 configured to convert the rotational shaft power of the wind turbine to electrical power;
a hydrogen production system 18 configured to be powered by the electrical generator (column 4, lines 31-35);
a propulsion system 29 configured to propel the floatable vessel via power from the electrical generator; and
a steering system to control orientation of the floatable vessel relative to the water and the airstream;
wherein the system is configured to operate in:
a hydrogen production mode in which the first major axis is oriented approximately perpendicular to a prevailing wind direction such that the primary hull presents a bluff body to relative water motion to maximize water resistance; and
a hydrogen transport mode in which the first major axis is oriented approximately parallel to a direction of travel such that the primary hull is streamlined to minimize hydrodynamic drag (column 3, lines 4-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
254
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Borden Figure 1
Borden does not teach that the floatable vessel comprises a trimaran. Dane teaches renewable energy powered ocean vessel 400 which comprises a trimaran comprising:
a primary hull 401 extending along a first major axis;
a first outrigger hull 402 extending along a second major axis spaced laterally from the primary hull; and
a second outrigger hull 402 extending along a third major axis spaced laterally from the primary hull;
wherein the first major axis, the second major axis and the third major axis are parallel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Borden with outriggers to be a trimaran as taught by Dane in order to give the vessel more stability and/or the desired draft.
PNG
media_image2.png
261
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Dane Figure 7
Regarding claim 2, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden also discloses a tower extending vertically from the floatable vessel to support the wind turbine (see Borden figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden is silent as to whether a yaw orientation of the wind turbine relative to the floatable vessel is/can be fixed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit any components that enable yaw rotation in order to simplify the device and aid in manufacturing or maintenance, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 4, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden also teaches that the hydrogen production system comprises an electrolyzer 18 (column 4, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 5, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Borden also teaches that the hydrogen production system 18 further comprises a desalination system 22 (column 4, lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 6, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden also teaches a storage system 24 for storing hydrogen produced by the hydrogen production system 18.
Regarding claim 7, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden also teaches a propeller or thruster configured to push the floatable vessel 10 in a first direction.
Regarding claim 8, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Borden also teaches that the propulsion system comprises a fuel cell 26 (column 5, lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 9, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Borden also teaches that the fuel cell 26 is configured to operate with hydrogen produced by the hydrogen production system (column 5, lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 10, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Borden also teaches an electric motor 29 configured to drive the propulsion system, wherein the fuel cell 26 provides electrical input to the propulsion system (column 5, lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 11, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Borden also teaches a battery 28 configured to store electrical power generated by the fuel cell 26.
Regarding claim 12, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Borden also teaches that the steering system comprises a rudder system (see Borden Figures 1-3). In an alternate interpretation, Borden does not teach that the steering system comprises a rudder system. Dane teaches renewable energy powered ocean vessel which comprises a rudder 210. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Borden with a rudder as taught by Dane in order to ensure the vessel can be steered as desired.
Regarding claim 15, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Dane also teaches that the primary hull 401 is axially longer and deeper than the first and second outrigger hulls 402.
PNG
media_image3.png
253
367
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Dane Figure 8
Regarding claim 16, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 15. Dane also teaches:
a plurality of struts configured to connect the first outrigger hull 402 and the second outrigger hull with the primary hull 401; and
one or more rudders 210;
wherein the plurality of struts are configured to space the first and second outrigger hulls from the primary hull and are positioned so as to be spaced above a water line when the floatable vessel is placed in water.
Neither Borden nor Dance teach that the rudder is mounted to the plurality of struts, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the rudder/rudders on the strut in order to decrease the draft of the vessel, simplify maintenance or obtain the desired handling, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Similarly, if applicant does not agree that the struts are above the waterline, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the struts above the waterline in order to decrease their exposure to saltwater or reduce hydrodynamic drag, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 17, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Borden also teaches:
a controller configured to operate the propulsion system and the steering system to propel the floatable vessel in a first orientation and a second orientation (column 3, lines 4-11);
wherein the first orientation corresponds to the transport mode and is parallel to the first, second and third major axes; and
wherein the second orientation corresponds to the hydrogen production mode and is perpendicular to the first, second and third major axes.
In this case, Borden can move the vessel in any direction desired. In an alternate interpretation, Borden comprises a main propeller as well as bow thrusters to directly move the vessel in perpendicular directions (column 3, line 57-column 4, line 5).
Regarding claim 18, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 17. Borden also teaches sensors configured to provide feedback to the controller regarding location and orientation of the floatable vessel (column 3, line 57-column 4, line 5). Alternatively, Dane teaches sensors configured to provide feedback to the controller regarding location and orientation of the floatable vessel (column 5, lines 61-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Borden with a guidance system and sensors as taught by Dane in order to enable automated control of the vessel.
Regarding claim 19, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 17. Borden also teaches memory in communication with the controller and having stored therein instructions for navigating the floatable vessel along sea routes (column 3, line 57-column 4, line 5). In this case the use of GPS alone would require memory and stored instructions. Alternatively, Dane teaches memory in communication with the controller 600 and having stored therein instructions for navigating the floatable vessel along sea routes (column 7, lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Borden with a control system as taught by Dane in order to enable automated control of the vessel.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borden US 7,453,164 in view of Dane US 7,789,723 and Lauritsen US 6,979,171.
Regarding claim 3, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden is silent as to whether a yaw orientation of the wind turbine relative to the floatable vessel is/can be fixed. Lauritsen teaches a wind turbine system 10 in which a yaw orientation of the wind turbine 2 relative to the floatable vessel 4 is be fixed (column 6 line 65-column 7 line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wind turbine of Borden by fixing the yaw axis as taught by Lauritsen in order to “save money and increase reliability of operation even further since the yaw system presents an inherent risk of mechanical break-down” (column 2, lines 13-20).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borden US 7,453,164 in view of Dane US 7,789,723 and Warnes US 7,178,474.
Regarding claim 20, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden does not teach a ballast system for moving seawater in and out of the first and second outrigger hulls. Warnes teaches a ship 10 with a ballast system 12 for moving seawater in and out of the hull (column 2, lines 5-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Borden with a ballasting system as taught by Dane in order to compensate for the weights of other fluids on board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the ballast system on the outrigger hulls in order to fine tune the balance of the ship, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borden US 7,453,164 in view of Dane US 7,789,723 and Balogh US 5,134,953.
Regarding claim 16, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 15. Dane also teaches:
a plurality of struts configured to connect the first outrigger hull 402 and the second outrigger hull with the primary hull 401; and
one or more rudders 210;
wherein the plurality of struts are configured to space the first and second outrigger hulls from the primary hull and are positioned so as to be spaced above a water line when the floatable vessel is placed in water.
Neither Borden nor Dance teach that the rudder is mounted to the plurality of struts. Balogh teaches a vessel 200 which comprises a trimaran (when outfitted with floats 100), which comprises:
a plurality of struts 42, 12 configured to connect the first outrigger hull and the second outrigger hull 30 with the primary hull 200; and
one or more rudders (not shown) mounted to the plurality of struts (column 5, lines 11-19);
wherein the plurality of struts are configured to space the first and second outrigger hulls from the primary hull and are positioned so as to be spaced above a water line when the floatable vessel is placed in water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Borden and Dane with rudders on the struts as taught by Balogh in order to increase handling or reduce hydrodynamic interference to the rudder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ship of Borden and Dane with struts above the waterline as taught by Balogh in order to decrease their exposure to saltwater or reduce hydrodynamic drag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Borden neither discloses nor suggests operating a vessel in two distinct perpendicular orientations to exploit differences in hydrodynamic drag characteristics between bluff-body and streamlined configurations” (page 13), the examiner disagrees. Borden teaches that the vessel can be steered, which is all that is required to meet the claim. Recall that a device of the prior art meets a functionally-defined limitation if it is capable of the recited function, and the prior art reference need not envision the device actually being used to perform the claimed function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Borden is fully capable of orienting itself perpendicular or parallel to the wind.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where applicant argues that none of the references teach both the wind turbine/hydrogen production and the trimaran configuration, the examiner responds that each reference pertains to marine vehicles, and would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be combinable.
The applicant argues that the examiner has not properly applied the Graham v. Deere factors, but gives no indication of which modification they wish to contest. However, The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows:
(A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art: Borden teaches a ship with wind energy generation, Dane, Balogh and Warnes all pertain to ships, and Lauritsen teaches a wind energy generation platform.
(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art: Borden and Warnes teach monohull vessels, Dane and Balogh teach multi-hull vessels, and Lauritsen teaches a floating platform.
(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art: As primary reference Borden teaches a ship with wind turbines, one of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand how the vessel features of Dane, Balogh and Warnes would be applied, as well as the wind turbine teachings of Lauritsen.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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