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Claims 21-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 line 1 recites that “rotational orientation of the wind turbine relative to the floatable vessel is fixed.” As by definition turbines must rotate in order to function, it is unclear how this limitation is intended to be interpreted. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted to mean that the turbine is fixed in at least one dimension relative to the vessel.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borden US 7,453,164.
Regarding claim 1, Borden teaches a wind turbine system comprising:
a floatable vessel 10 configured to move along water in two orientations;
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 (column 3, lines 4-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
254
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Borden Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Borden discloses 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 as best understood, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Borden also discloses that the rotational orientation of the wind turbine relative to the floatable vessel is fixed, as the towers remain upright.
Regarding claim 4, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden also discloses that the hydrogen production system comprises an electrolyzer 18 (column 4, lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 5, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Borden also discloses that the hydrogen production system 18 further comprises a desalination system 22 (column 4, lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 6, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden also discloses a storage system 24 for storing hydrogen produced by the hydrogen production system 18.
Regarding claim 7, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden also discloses a propeller or thruster configured to push the floatable vessel 10 in a first direction.
Regarding claim 8, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Borden also discloses that the propulsion system comprises a fuel cell 26 (column 5, lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 9, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Borden also discloses 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 discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Borden also discloses 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 discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Borden also discloses a battery 28 configured to store electrical power generated by the fuel cell 26.
Regarding claim 12, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Borden also discloses that the steering system comprises a rudder system (see Borden Figures 1-3).
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 12-19 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 12, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. 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 13, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden does not teach that the floatable vessel comprises a trimaran. Dane teaches renewable energy powered ocean vessel 400 which comprises a trimaran. 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 14, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Dane also teaches that the trimaran comprises:
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.
Regarding claim 15, Borden and Dane teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. 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 is parallel to the first, second and third major axes; and
wherein the second orientation 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 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 14. 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.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borden US 7,453,164 in view of Balogh US 5,134,953.
Regarding claim 13, Borden discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Borden does not teach that the floatable vessel comprises a trimaran. Balogh teaches a vessel 200 which comprises a trimaran (when outfitted with floats 100). 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 Balogh in order to give the vessel more stability and/or the desired draft.
Regarding claim 14, Borden and Balogh teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Balogh also teaches that the trimaran comprises:
a primary hull extending along a first major axis;
a first outrigger hull 30 extending along a second major axis spaced laterally from the primary hull; and
a second outrigger hull 30 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 Balogh in order to give the vessel more stability and/or the desired draft.
Regarding claim 15, Borden and Balogh teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Balogh also teaches that the primary hull 200 is axially longer and deeper than the first and second outrigger hulls 30.
Regarding claim 16, Borden and Balogh teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 15. Balogh also teaches:
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 with outriggers and rudder to be a trimaran as taught by Balogh in order to give the vessel more stability and/or the desired draft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ouchi US 10,767,631 teaches a catamaran-style vessel which uses wind energy to generate hydrogen.
Nes US 10,451,028 and Lagerwey US 6,294,844 teach trimarans with power generating wind turbines.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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