DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 .
Status of Objections and Rejections
The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous objection to claim 8 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112 stands.
All other rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). It is additionally noted that the instant claims are unclear (see rejection below). If claim 3 requires a wind power generation capacity and a region, then claim 5 would be a duplicate claim.
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 3-5 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.
Regarding claim 3, the use of parathesis renders the claim unclear. The phrase “a surrounding environment (a wind power generation capacity and a region)” is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrasing is indicating that a surrounding environment is a wind power generation capacity and a region, is optionally a wind power generation capacity and/or a region or some other scenario. It is unclear what surrounding environment is inclusive of.
Claims 4-5 depend from claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 allowed.
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art alone or in combination does not disclose or render obvious the combination of claim limitations of claim 1. In particular, the prior art does not disclose an offshore wind power generation-seawater desalination-water electrolysis complex system comprising a wind power generator…a seawater desalination apparatus…a water electrolysis apparatus…wherein the system comprises a first heat exchanger, a first low-temperature water flow pipe, a first high-temperature water flow pipe, and a second high-temperature water flow pipe, wherein the first heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to the cooler of the wind power generator through the first low-temperature water flow pipe and the first high-temperature water flow pipe, and wherein the first heat exchanger is fluidly coupled to the seawater desalination apparatus through the second high-temperature water flow pipe such that seawater heated through the cooler of the wind power generator is supplied to the seawater desalination apparatus.
The closest prior art includes the teachings of Nakatake et al. (JP 2005-144328) as described in the Office action dated 21 April 2026. Briefly, Nakatake et al. disclose a maritime wind power generation seawater desalination system comprising wind power and seawater desalination. Nakatake et al. fail to disclose a water electrolysis apparatus and wherein a part of a heat source discharged from the water electrolysis apparatus is configured to be heat-exchanged with the cooler. The closest prior art also includes the teachings of Dietrich (DE 102011017491). Dietrich discloses an offshore wind farm coupled with a water electrolysis apparatus and integrated with a seawater desalination apparatus. The remarks on page 7 of the response dated 21 July 2026 are found persuasive. Nakatake et al. and Dietrich fail to disclose a wind power generator having a cooler and a first heat exchanger fluidly coupled to the cooler.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered. The remarks on page 7 are found persuasive. Nakatake et al. and Dietrich fail to disclose a wind power generator having a cooler and a first heat exchanger fluidly coupled to the cooler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 212799707
CN 111592064
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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights