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
The election filed 6/1/2026 has been entered. Group II containing claims 4-12 have been elected for examination without traverse. Claims 1-24 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-3, and claims 13-23 withdrawn from examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please replace the first instance of “FRP” in line 3 of the claim with “Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nevierov et al. (US 20240174329 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nevierov semi-submersible wind turbine platform capable of floating on a body of water and supporting a wind turbine (Figures 1-3 and Figure 18. Figure 18 discloses an alternate embodiment of the floating structure), the semi-submersible wind turbine platform comprising: a center column having a first axial end and a second axial end (Figures 1-3, 18), the center column configured to have a tower attached to the second axial end thereof (¶ [0078); at least three outer columns having first and second axial ends (Figures 3 and 18); a plurality of trusses (Figures 3 and 18), wherein each truss extends radially outward of the center column to one of the outer columns (Figures 3 and 18); top support beams extending between each outer column (Figure 18); and bottom support beams extending between each outer column (Figure 18).
Regarding claim 6, Nevierov teaches the invention in claim 4, wherein each truss further includes: a plurality of elongated first truss members (Figure 18), wherein one of the first truss members extends between a base of the center column and a base of each outer column (Figure 18), and wherein three of the first truss members extend between the center column and each of the outer columns (Figure 18); and a pair of second truss members, wherein one of the second truss members extends between a mid-point of the first truss member and the center column (Figure 18), and a second one of the second truss members extends between the mid-point of the first truss member and one of the outer columns (Figure 18).
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevierov et al. (US 20240174329 A1) in view of Wang (EP 4276005 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nevierov in view of Wang teach the invention in claim 4, wherein the outer columns have disk-shaped heave plates mounted to the first axial ends thereof, the heave plates extending radially beyond a perimeter of the outer columns (the embodiment found in Figure 3 teaches the use of heave plates under the columns of the semi-submersible structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the same heave discs into the embodiment found in Figure 18, in order to provide circumferential stability and increased control of the vertical motion of the platform. More, Nevierov fails to specifically teach wherein the outer and center columns are made of prestressed reinforced concrete. However, use of prestressed reinforced concrete for semi-submersible offshore wind-power structures is well known in the art as is evidenced by the Abstract, ¶ [0010, 0014-0016] and Figures 2-3 of Wang. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Wang into Nevierov’s semi-submersible wind-power structure, in order to reduce building material cost and provide enhanced durability (as taught by ¶ [0006] of Wang).
Claim(s) 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevierov et al. (US 20240174329 A1) in view of Pena (WO 2023057671 A1) and Wang (EP 4276005 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Nevierov teaches a semi-submersible wind turbine platform capable of floating on a body of water and supporting a wind turbine (Figures 1-3, 18), the semi-submersible wind turbine platform comprising: a center column having a first axial end and a second axial end (Figures 1-3, 18), the center column configured to have a tower attached to the second axial end thereof (¶ [0078); at least three outer columns having first and second axial ends (Figures 1-3, 18); at least three radially extending top beams connected to the center column and to each of the outer columns (Figure 18); three top support beams, one of which extends between each of two adjacent outer columns (Figure 18); and at least three bottom support beams, one of which extends between each of two adjacent outer columns (Figure 18). Nevierov also teaches at least three bottom beams extending radially outward of the center column to the outer columns (Figure 18), but fails to specifically teach that the beams are t-beams. However, use of t-beams as truss structures is well known in the art as evidenced by Pena’s analogous semi-submersible wind-power structure (Figures 1-6, Col. 12, lines 5-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a t-shape into the beams in order to resist compressive and shear forces. More, Nevierov fails to specifically teach that the bottom beams are formed from prestressed reinforced concrete. However, use of prestressed concrete beams and trusses is well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶[0010] of Wang’s analogous semi-submersible wind-power structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate pre-stressed concrete into Nevierov’s semi-submersible wind-power structure, in order to reduce building material cost and provide enhanced durability (as taught by ¶ [0006] of Wang).
Regarding claim 8, Nevierov in view of Pena and Wang teach the invention in claim 7, wherein the bottom T-beams are formed from one of pre-stressed reinforced concrete (see cited response to claim 7), FRP, steel (¶[0117] of Nevierov teaches the use of steel. ¶ [0010, 0014-0016] of Wang teaches the use of concrete filled steel tubes), and combinations of pre-stressed reinforced concrete, FRP, and steel (¶ [0010, 0014-0016] of Wang).
Regarding claim 9, Nevierov in view of Pena and Wang teach the invention in claim 7, wherein the outer and central columns are made of prestressed reinforced concrete (¶ [0016] of Wang), and wherein the top and bottom support beams, and the radially extending top beams are formed from steel tube (¶[0117] of Nevierov. ¶ [0010, 0014-0016] of Wang).
Regarding claim 10, Nevierov teaches a semi-submersible wind turbine platform capable of floating on a body of water and supporting a wind turbine (Figures 1-3, 18), the semi-submersible wind turbine platform comprising: a center column having a first axial end and a second axial end (Figures 1-3, 18), the center column configured to have a tower attached to the second axial end thereof (¶ [0078); at least three outer columns having first and second axial ends (Figures 1-3, 18); at least three trusses extending radially outward of the center column to the outer columns (Figure 18); a plurality of top support beams (Figure 18), one of which extends between each of two adjacent outer columns (Figure 18); and a plurality of bottom support beams (Figure 18), one of which extends between each of two adjacent outer columns (Figure 18). Nevierov fails to specifically teach wherein the trusses are hybrid concrete-steel trusses, and wherein each truss includes a bottom truss chord formed as a pre-stressed reinforced concrete beam. However, use of hybrid steel and prestressed concrete beams and trusses are well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶[0010, 0014-0016] of Wang’s analogous semi-submersible wind-power structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the hybrid pre-stressed concrete into Nevierov’s semi-submersible wind-power structure, in order to reduce building material cost and provide enhanced durability (as taught by ¶ [0006] of Wang). More, Nevierov fails to specifically teach that the bottom truss chord is formed as a T-beam. However, use of t-beams as truss structures is well known in the art as evidenced by Pena’s analogous semi-submersible wind-power structure (Figures 1-6, Col. 12, lines 5-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a t-shape into the beams in order to resist compressive and shear forces.
Regarding claim 11, Nevierov in view of Pena and Wang teach the invention in claim 10, wherein each truss further includes: a pair of second truss members (Figure 18 of Nevierov), wherein one of the second truss members extends between a mid-point of the T-beam and the center column(Figure 18 of Nevierov), and a second one of the second truss members extends between the mid-point of the T-beam and one of the outer columns (Figure 18 of Nevierov); and a third truss member that extends radially between the center column and one of the outer columns (Figure 18 of Nevierov).
Regarding claim 12, Nevierov in view of Pena and Wang teach the invention in claim 10, wherein the outer and center columns are made of prestressed reinforced concrete (¶ [0010, 0014-0016] of Wang), and wherein the top and bottom support beams are formed from steel tube (¶ [0010 and 0014-0016 of Wang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tan (US 20240010309 A1): teaches the use of Fiber reinforced polymers in analogous floating platforms.
Sauvage (US 20220063774 A1): teaches the use of steel and prestressed concrete in truss systems and columns in analogous semi-submersible wind-power structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights