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 Objections
There are instances of typographical errors and/or minor informalities noted in the claims. Suggested corrections are identifiable throughout the respective 35 U.S.C. §102/103 Rejections sections via strike-through, under inline, and double brackets. Please consider the suggestions.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites three instances of “an energy source” in lines 2, 5 and 7 of the claim. Claims 4 and 6 each have an additional instance of the term. The term renders claims 1, 4 and 6 indefinite as it is unclear if the energy source is just one source configured to be provided, supplied, received, etc., or if three or four distinct energy sources are being claimed? It appears to be the former, as such the claims should amended to read “the
Claims 2-3 and 5 fail to cure the deficiency. Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the term “the power generation facility”. The term renders claim 6 indefinite as there is lack of antecedent basis for the term in the claims. Correction/clarification is required. For example, should “the power generation facility” instead read “the supply facility” as introduced in claim 1? Or, is claim 6 supposed to instead depend from claim 4 as claim 4 first establishes antecedent basis for “a power generation facility”?
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 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (Colello et al. (US 2011/0282807 A1), hereinafter Colello.
Regarding claim 1, Colello discloses an energy transportation system (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a transportation ship provided with a holder for holding an energy source (ship 110(3), Fig. 1; with energy store 104 holding energy , Fig. 1 and §[0085]: Energy store 104 may be transported by any convenient means, such as… water 110(3) (watercraft such as a ship or barge));
a supply facility configured to be located outside the transportation ship and configured to supply an energy source to the holder (store 104 from first source 102; Fig. 1; §[0087]: FIG. 1 shows one exemplary system 100 for transporting energy from a first location 101 to a second location 103. Energy from a first source 102(1), 102(2) is stored within an energy store 104 at first location 101. For example, first energy source 102 may be any of: a coal/gas/nuclear power station, a wind farm, a solar array, an underwater turbine, a geothermal power generator, and so on. That is, any convenient energy source may be used to supply energy for storage into energy store 104. Energy store 104 includes, for example, a battery, a capacitor, a mechanical energy storage device (e.g., a flywheel or a compressed air storage tank), and/or a thermal energy storage device); and
a reception facility configured to be located outside the transportation ship and configured to receive a supply of an energy source from the holder (store 104” for consumers 106, i.e., a reception facility: §[0084]: Energy store 104 is then transported 108 (shown as energy store 104') to second location 103, where the energy from energy store 104 (shown as energy store 104'') is provided to consumers 106(1) and 106(2). As known in the art, energy may be converted from one form to another. For example, electrical energy may be converted into kinetic energy (e.g., using an electric motor) to pump water, electrical energy may be used to power a compressor to pressurize a gas, electrical energy may be converted into heat, electrical energy may be converted into light, and so on. Thus, energy of energy store 104 may be converted into a form desired by consumer 106).
Regarding claim 2, Colello discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the holder is a storage battery (from above, energy store 104 includes, for example, a battery, a capacitor, a mechanical energy storage device, and/or a thermal energy storage device; e.g. battery 600, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Colello discloses the system according to claim 1, further comprising a power generation facility configured to supply an energy source to the supply facility (from above, For example, first energy source 102 may be any of: a coal/gas/nuclear power station, a wind farm, a solar array, an underwater turbine, a geothermal power generator, and so on. That is, any convenient energy source may be used to supply energy for storage into energy store 104).
Regarding claim 5, Colello discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the supply facility and the reception facility are configured to be located onshore (Fig. 1; the office notes the list of power generation facilities onshore particularly in Fig. 20 and Fig. 21 and the reception facility on an island, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Colello discloses an energy transportation method comprising
transporting an energy source by a transportation ship provided with a holder for holding the energy source from a supply facility outside the transportation ship to a reception facility outside the transportation ship (Figs 1, 20, 21, 23).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colello as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of (JP 2005/5220946A), hereinafter Tanigaki (note the 74 page FOREIGN document in the information file wrapper, aka. the IFW).
Regarding claim 3, Colello discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the holder is a hydrogen tank.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tanigaki teaches a hydrogen transport system including a transportation ship provided with a tank for holding an energy source (hydrogen transport tank 21, §[0019] of description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the holder for holding an energy source disclosed by Colello with the hydrogen tank as taught by Tanigaki, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the holder is a hydrogen tank. The benefit being the ability to transport whichever type of energy is preferred via the energy transportation system, i.e., hydrogen energy. The office notes there does not appear to be a criticality to which type of energy is transported by the individual invention claimed as is evidenced by Applicant claiming both a battery holder embodiment and a hydrogen tank holder embodiment.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colello as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of (JP 2016/100970), hereinafter Hashimoto (note the 106 page FOR document in the IFW).
Regarding claim 6, Colello discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the transportation ship is configured to receive an energy source from the power generation facility via a cable (2010, Fig. 20, §[0150]: Ship 900 connects to power connector 2008 via a power line 2010 to receive electrical power from wind farm 2002), or is configured to supply
However, in the field of offshore power generation equipment, Hashimoto teaches technology that can be used to save, transport and store energy in the form of hydrogen gas and/or batteries (§[0001], pg. 51/106) including a robot arm for suspending and holding a cable (SAD for suspending and holding aerial power line AK, Fig. 1; moveable arm device, §[0032], pg. 66/106; §[0079], pg. 84/106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the transportation ship disclosed by Colello with the robot arm for suspending and holding cable taught by Hashimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the ship comprises the robot arm for suspending and holding the cable. The benefit being the ability to quickly stop the ship, connect a power cable, separate the power cable, and depart the ship (§[0032], line 638, page 66/106).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pederson (US 2022/0289345) teaches an offshore drilling vessel includes a hull and at least one opening in the hull arranged to receive an end of at least one submersible cable. The offshore drilling vessel also comprises a cable capture mechanism configured to lift the end of the at least one submersible cable through the at least one opening from a submersed position to a raised position. A cable connector is configured to couple to the end of the at least one submersible cable when the end of the at least one submersible cable is in the raised position such that the offshore drilling vessel comprises an external data and/or power connection via the submersible cable.
Pietsch (US 11,971,222) teaches an energy transportation and grid support system utilizes at least one transportable containment module capable of storing thermal or chemical energy typically produced from renewable or geothermal sources and providing connectivity with energy conversion equipment typically located in a land or sea-based operating facility. The system includes circuitry to hookup to an adjacent electricity grid for the provision of grid support and/or piping to move thermal energy typically used to drive steam turbines generating electricity. The operating facility also includes a communication arrangement to link with and exchange operations control data with a grid or heating operator and the energy transportation operator. The invention is directed to both apparatus and method for the energy transportation and grid support system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights