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. 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. Claim s 1, 3, 4, 12, 18, 21, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronemus et al (US 2003/0168864 A1) in view of Aujollet (US 2010/0140102 A) . Heronemus et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1, 2, 13, and 22, and paragraphs [0043], [0058], [0082], and [0093]) a floating wind turbine device comprising a rotor (3), a generator (63) driven by the rotor for producing electrical power, a nacelle (50) housing the generator, a floatable foundation (7), a mast section (not numbered) having a lower end connected to the floatable foundation and an upper end connected to the nacelle, electrolysis equipment (123) for producing hydrogen gas from the water upon which the floatable foundation is floating, wherein the electrolysis equipment was power by the electrical power from the generator (63), water treatment equipment (121) for preparing water (desalination) from the water mass for use in the electrolysis equipment, and one or more storage vessels ( 105, see also claim 48 ) for storing the hydrogen, the storage vessels being located below the waterline such that the hydrogen gas provided buoyancy to the floa table wind turbine device. Heronemus et al teach (see paragraph [0092]) storing the hydrogen gas at elevated pressure, but fails to explicitly teach the value of the elevated pressure . The limitation “a storage pressure of the hydrogen in the one or more storage vessels is 2-30 bar” is a functional limitation within the overall floatable wind turbine claim. Aujollet teaches hydrogen storage and transport pressures of 30 to 130 bars (paragraph [0214] ) . Additionally Heronemus et al teach hydrogen storage at elevated pressure (paragraph [0092] ) . Atmospheric pressure is 1 bar. Heronemus et al broadly suggest >1 bar. A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference (MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore , Heronemus and Aujollet together suggest hydrogen storage at 1- 130 bar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have conducted routine experimentation to determine suitable pressures of hydrogen storage from within the broad range taught by Heronemus et al and Aujollet , noting that energy density of hydrogen increased with increasing pressure while capital expense of the storage vessels increased with increasing pressure due to stronger components being necessary. Additionally, claim 1 is an apparatus claim, and gas storage pressure relates to the manner of use of the claimed structure. See MPEP § 2114. Here, the structure of the prior art need only be capable of functioning with a hydrogen storage pressure within the claimed range. For example, if the prior art taught the hydrogen storage pressure being 130 bar, the system would have been capable of storing hydrogen at 2-30 bar as well. Regarding claims 3 and 4, as noted above, it would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art to have conducted routine experimentation to determine suitable pressures of hydrogen storage, noting that energy density of hydrogen increased with increasing pressure while capital expense of the storage vessels increased with increasing pressure due to stronger components being necessary. Regarding claim 12, the floatable win d turbine of Heronemus et al constitutes a spar-type design. See esp. fig. 3 of Heronemus et al. Regarding claim 18, the underwater vessels of Heronemus et al included a tapering in a depth direction on their lower side. See fig. 2. Regarding claim 21, Heronemus et al teach (see fig. 22 and paragraph [0093]) providing a fuel cell (109) that generates electricity from the hydrogen gas. Using the electricity from the fuel cell to power equipment onboard the floatable wind turbine during times of low/no wind would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to ensure that the system always had available power. Regarding claim 24, Heronemus et al teach (see figs. 1 and 2, paragraph [0058]) connecting the floatable wind turbine to a transport line (15) for transporting the hydrogen to another location, such as onshore. Regarding claim 27, Heronemus et al teach a method performed by the floatable wind turbine of claim 1, wherein the method included the steps of using wind to rotate the rotor, driving the generator with the rotor to produce electrical power, using the electrical power to power the electrolysis equipment thereby producing hydrogen from the water mass upon which the foundation was floating, wherein the water treatment (desalinization) equipment prepared the water for use in the electrolysis equipment, and storing the hydrogen in one or more storage vessels. Heronemus et al teach (see paragraph [0092]) storing the hydrogen gas at elevated pressure, but fails to explicitly teach the value of the elevated pressure. Aujollet teaches hydrogen storage and transport pressures of 30 to 130 bars (paragraph [0214] ) . Additionally Heronemus et al teach hydrogen storage at elevated pressure (paragraph [0092] ) . Atmospheric pressure is 1 bar. Heronemus et al broadly suggest >1 bar. A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference (MPEP 2144.05.I). Therefore , Heronemus and Aujollet together suggest hydrogen storage at 1- 130 bar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have conducted routine experimentation to determine suitable pressures of hydrogen storage from within the broad range taught by Heronemus et al and Aujollet, noting that energy density of hydrogen increased with increasing pressure while capital expense of the storage vessels increased with increasing pressure due to stronger components being necessary. Regarding claim 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided a disassembled kit of all of the components of Heronemus et al to permit the components to be assembled in place on the body of water rather than having to transport the assembled wind turbine from shore to the location of use. Claims 2, 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronemus et al (US 2003/0168864 A1) in view of Aujollet (US 2010/0140102 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinsella (WO 2020/095012 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Heronemus et al teach (see paragraph [0092] ) that the electrolysis components produced the hydrogen gas at atmospheric pressure with subsequent compression to the storage pressure. Kinsella teaches (see abstract, figs. 1-3) conducting electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen gas on a floating wind turbine platform. Kinsella further teaches (see paragraph [0014]) that the electrolysis unit may be directly configured to produce hydrogen gas at pressures up to 40 bar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the electrolysis components of Heronemus et al to directly produce the hydrogen gas at the storage pressure as suggested by Kinsella. One of ordinary skill in the art would have clearly understood the advantage to be removing the need for a separate compressor system for increasing the pressure of the hydrogen gas. Regarding claim 5, Heronemus et al fail to teach the details of the electrolysis components that produced the hydrogen gas. Kinsella teaches (see abstract, figs. 1-3) conducting electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen gas on a floating wind turbine platform. Kinsella further teaches (see paragraph [0013]) utilizing a polymer exchange membrane electrolyzer for producing the hydrogen gas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the polymer exchange membrane electrolyzer of Kinsella with the wind turbine system of Heronemus et al according to yield the predictable result of performing the electrolysis for hydrogen gas production according to the teachings of Kinsella. Regarding claims 13 and 14, Heronemus et al fail to provide details on the location of the electrolysis equipment, the electrical equipment, the water treatment equipment and the energy storage equipment. Kinsella teaches (see abstract, figs. 1-3) conducting electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen gas on a floating wind turbine platform. Kinsella further teaches (see fig. 3, paragraph [0015]) placing electrolysis equipment and water treatment equipment inside a column (i.e. a mast as claimed) of the floating foundation of the floatable wind turbine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have placed at least some of the components of Heronemus et al inside the vertically extending mast section of the floatable wind turbine according to the suggestion of Kinsella. Each element of Heronemus et al and Kinsella continues to perform the same function in the combined apparatus. See MPEP § 2143.I.A. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood that the equipment installed inside the mast would inherently be done in an “exchangeable” manner, i.e. removable, given that with enough effort, anything is removable. Note that adapting the parts to be modular for easy removal and replacement is also considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since parts break and replacement of the parts is made easier by using a modular construction. Claims 6 , 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronemus et al (US 2003/0168864 A1) in view of Aujollet (US 2010/0140102 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bielig ( DE 20 2016 102 785 U 1) . Regarding claim 6, in at least the embodiment of Heronemus et al seen in fig. 3, the floatable foundation of the wind turbine included a central, vertically extending structural element at least partially positioned below the waterline during use. Heronemus et al further teaches (see fig. 2) providing a plurality of components circumferentially arranged around a central axis of the floatable foundation. Heronemus et al fail to teach that the storage vessels were vertically extending. The storage vessels are shown as being spherical. Bielig teaches (see fig. 1 and paragraph [ 0013 ] of machine translation) storing the hydrogen gas produced by electrolysis powdered by a floating wind turbine in vertically oriented containers that form part of the floatable foundation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the wind turbine system of Heronemus et al with the vertically oriented storage vessels of Bielig that also formed the floating foundation of the wind turbine by changing the shape of the storage vessels of Heronemus et al. Each element of Heronemus et al and Bielig continues to perform the same function in the combined apparatus. See MPEP § 2143.I.A. Regarding claim 19, the storage vessels suggested by Bielig were made from concrete. Regarding claim 23, the storage vessels suggested by Bielig were tubular/cylindrical in shape. It would have been within the ordinary level of skill to conduct routine experimentation to determine a suitable diameter to wall thickness ratio to ensure that the storage vessels were strong enough (wall thickness) to withstand the pressure of the hydrogen stored therein will balancing the total volume of hydrogen that could be stored (diameter of vessel) . Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronemus et al (US 2003/0168864 A1) in view of A ujollet (US 2010/0140102 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiqi et al (“Effect of Nb on the hydrogen-induced cracking of high-strength low-alloy steel”) . Regarding claim 10, Heronemus et al are silent with respect to the composition of the storage vessels. Shiqi et al teach (see abstract) that high-strength low-alloy steel that further includes a small addition of niobium exhibited enhanced resistance to hydrogen-induced cracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a niobium-containing, high-strength low-alloy steel as suggested by Shiqi et al for the storage vessels of Heronemus et al to increase the expected lifetime of the storage vessels due to their function of containing hydrogen gas. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronemus et al (US 2003/0168864 A1) in view of Aujollet (US 2010/0140102 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dederick (US 5,512,787 A) . Regarding claim 16, Heronemus et al teach generation and storage of hydrogen gas on board the floatable wind turbine. Heronemus et al fail to teach configuring the floatable wind turbine for refueling hydrogen powered boats or vessels. Dederick teaches (see abstract, figs. 2 and 4) a floatable wind turbine (16) that generates hydrogen gas and which is adapted to refuel marine craft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the floatable wind turbine of Heronemus et al according to the suggestion of Dederick by adding configurations for refueling hydrogen powered marine craft to permit remote fueling of the marine craft without relying on fossil fuels. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronemus et al (US 2003/0168864 A1) in view of Aujollet (US 2010/0140102 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berenguer Cobi á n ( US 2020/ 0032473 A1) . Berenguer Cobi á n teach (see fig. 2, abstract) constructing floatable foundations for wind turbines using honeycomb (hexagonal) structure which is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as balancing additional strength against additional weight. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a honeycomb structure as taught by Berenguer Cobi á n into the storage vessels of Heronemus et al to balance additional strength against additional weight. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heronemus et al (US 2003/0168864 A1) in view of Aujollet (US 2010/0140102 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lessing (US 2004/0055897 A1) . Regarding claim 22, Heronemus et al are silent with respect to the composition of the storage vessels. Lessing teaches (see abstract, fig. 1, paragraphs [0005]-[0008] and [0010])) providing a liner on the interior surface of a hydrogen gas storage vessel to protect the walls of the storage vessel from hydrogen exposure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the storage vessel of Heronemus et al to include a liner on the interior surface as suggested by Lessing for the purpose of protecting the walls of the storage vessel from the hydrogen gas. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kubo (WO 2006/077999 A1) is cited for additional discussions relating to conducting water electrolysis for hydrogen gas production using floating wind turbines while also utilizing depth to increase pressure on the produced hydrogen gas. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1251 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30am -6:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Lin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8902 . 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. /HARRY D WILKINS III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794