DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comment(s)
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A Response to an Election/Restriction Requirement was filed on 06/30/2026.
Election/Restriction
In response to the restriction requirement mailed on 05/21/2026, applicant has provisionally elected the invention of Group I drawn to claims 1-9, with traverse. Accordingly, claims 10-20 are considered withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, and there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
In response to applicant’s remarks, the previous restriction requirement is reissued as follows: 4. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9 drawn to a semi-submersible offshore wind turbine platform, comprising: a central column with an upper end, lower end and defining a length along a vertical axis therebetween; classified in class 114, subclass 256 (USPC); and B63B2035/446 (CPC).
II. Claims 10-14 drawn to an assembly rig for assembling a transportable semi-submersible off-shore wind turbine platform, comprising: multiple cradles; classified in class 114, subclass 65 (USPC); and F03D13/126 (CPC).
III. Claims 15-20, drawn to a method of assembling a semi-submersible wind turbine platform, comprising: securing a floating column to a crane; classified in class 114, subclass 268 (USPC); and B63B75/00 (CPC).
Inventions I - III are directed to related products and/or processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different features, are mutually exclusive and are not obvious variants based on the claimed subject matter.
Inventions I and III are related as product and process of making such product. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product that does not include all of the material features specified for the product based on the claimed subject matter, and the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process that does not require all of the material features specified for the process based on the claimed subject matter.
7. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction was not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
In the instant case, all of (a) through (e) apply based on the claimed subject matter.
8. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
9. The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention.
10. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
11. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
12. Any claims drawn to a non-elected invention (withdrawn claims) not canceled by the applicant at the time of any allowance of any remaining claims in the application, will be canceled by the examiner at the time of the allowance of such claims.
In view of the foregoing, claims 1-9 are remaining in the application for examination on the merits as further indicated in this Non-Final Office Action (OA).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: The drawings should include drawing reference characters and not labels; the drawing reference characters should correlate to the features/labels provided in the Specification. Correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
17. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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 1-9 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, regards as the invention.
The recited limitation “the float” (claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims), “the three floats” (claim 8) and “the four floats” (claim 8) lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. In addition, the phrase “between float and central column” (claims 5 and 6) is not clear and appears to include a typographical and/or grammatical error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
20. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1: US 2022/0119081 A1 (Aker Solutions AS), cited by applicant. Regarding claims 1-7 and 9, D1 discloses all claimed features as follows: Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses a semi-submersible offshore wind turbine platform (a floater for a floatable wind energy power plant, abstract) comprising: at least one truss (a truss shown in figure 15i) having: a central (principal column supporting wind turbine tower between other columns; applicant has not specified that such column is in a center of any specific column arrangement) column (column 6003, para. [0199], figure 15i), the central column having an upper end and a lower end, defining a length along 3 vertical axis therebetween (column 6003 has an upper and lower end and B vertical central axis, figure 15i); at least one float having an upper end and a lower end (column 6001 has an upper and lower end, figure 15i; column 6001 floats above the surface 7009 of the water, para. [0181], figure 14f), defining a length along the vertical axis therebetween (column 6001 has a vertical central axis, figure 15i), the float spaced from the central column (column 6001 is spaced apart from column 6003, figure 15i); at least one upper beam coupled to the upper end of the float and the upper end of the central column (an upper beam 5007 is coupled to and extends between the upper ends of columns 6001 and 6003, para. [0199], figure 151); at least one lower beam coupled to the lower end of the float and the lower end of the central column (a lower beam 5007 is coupled to and extends between the lower ends of columns 6001 and 6003, para. [0199], figure 15i), wherein the lower beam is parallel to the upper beam (Figure 15i shows that the lower beam 5007 is parallel to the upper beam 5007), at least one cross beam coupled to the lower end of the float and the upper end of the central column (beam 5019 extends diagonally between the bottom of column 6001 and the top of column 6003, figure 15i), wherein each of the at least one upper beam, the at least one lower beam and the at least one cross beam are coupled via B plurality of pins to the float and the central column (beams 5007 and 5019 are coupled to column 6001 and 6003 by connectors 7000a-7000f, para. [0199], figure 15t; connectors 7000a-7000f each have 3 protruding pin 7001, para. [0156]. figures 11a, 11b, 15i); and wherein each of the a least one upper beam, the at least one lower beam, and the at least one cross beam are configured to move about an axis of each of the pins (the frustoconical shape of the protruding part 7001 and the receiver part 7003 of connectors 7000a-7000f allows the components being connected to be brought into engagement with an angle between their longitudinal axes before being slightly rotated and fixed into position. para. [0160], figures 11a-11b.14g-14i,15i). Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses the semi-submersible offshore wind turbine platform of claim 1, wherein the at least one float is a buoyancy chamber (each column may be provided with 2 ballast tank or chamber, para. [0099], [0182], [0603], [0625]). Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses that the wind turbine platform supports a wind turbine tower. Regarding claim 4. D1 discloses the semi-submersible offshore wind turbine platform of claim 1, wherein: the at least one upper beam is coupled to the upper end of the float with a first pin and to the upper end of the central column with a second pin (Figure 15i shows that the first end of upper beam 5007 is connected to the upper end of column 6001 by connector 7000a and the second end of upper beam 5007 is connected to the upper end of column 6003 by connector 7000b. Each connector 7000a-7000f has a pin 7001, figure 11a): the at least one lower beam is coupled to the lower cod of the float with a third pin and to the lower end of the central column with a fourth pm (Figure 15i shows that the first end of lower beam 5007 is connected to the lower end of the first column 6001 by a third connector 7000c and the second end of lower beam 5007 is connected to the lower end of column 6003 by 3 fourth connector 7000d. Each connector 7000a-7000f has a piu 7001, figure 11a); at least one cross beam is coupled to the lower end of the float with # fifth pin and to the upper end of the central column with a sixth pin (Figure 151 shows that the first end of beam 5019 is coupled to the lower end of column 6001 by a fifth connector 7000e and that the second end of beam 50019 is connected to the upper end of column 6003 with a sixth connector 7000f Each connector 7000a-7000f has a pin 7001, figure 11a). Regarding claim 5, D1 discloses the senti-submersible offshore wind turbine platform of claim 1, wherein, the at least one upper beam and at least one lower beam each define a length between float and central column, the length being perpendicular to vertical axis of the central column (Both the upper beam 5007 and the lower beam 5007 define a length extending between column 6001 and 6003 in the perpendicular direction with respect to the vertical axis of column 6003, figure 15i), Regarding Claim 6, D1 discloses the semi-submersible offshore wind turbine platform of Claim I, wherein the at least one upper beam and at least one lower beam each define a length between float and central column defining an horizontal axis, the axis being about perpendicular to the vertical axis of the central column (both the upper beam and the lower beam define a horizontal length extending between column 6001 and 6003 in the perpendicular direction with respect to the vertical axis of column 6003, figure 15i). Regarding claim 7, D1 discloses the semi-submersible offshore wind turbine platform of claim 1, further comprising: a line connection at one or more of the lower end of the float and the lower end of the central column, the line connection facilitating a connection to an anchored tether (multiple floaters 3000 made up of interconnected columns 6001-6003 are provided with mooring lines 3003 shown in figure 43 to be provided at the lower ends of the columns 6001-6003, para. [00467-0468]) Regarding claim 9. D1 discloses the semi-submersible offshore platform of claim 1, further comprising: an intermediary coupling that includes a first pin and an adjacent pin, an axis of B first pin being vertically offset. from the axis of an adjacent pin (connectors 7000a-f have 8 first protruding pin 7001 and a second elongated fixing element 7006 approximately perpendicular to and vertically above the pin 7001, para. [0157-0158], figures 11a-11d).
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.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 2022/0119081 A1 (Aker Solutions AS), cited by applicant, in view of D2: JP 2021011124 to (IHI Construction Materials Co Ltd), also cited by applicant. Regarding Claim 8, D1 discloses the semi-submersible offshore wind turbine platform of claim 1. D1 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one float is one or more of: (a) three floats, wherein the three floats are distributed circumferentially around the central column by about 120 degrees and (b) four floats, wherein the four floats are distributed circumferentially around the central column by about 90 degrees. However, D2 is MI the field of floating wind turbines (Abstract) and teaches wherein the at least one float is one or more of: (a) three floats, wherein the three floats are distributed circumferentially around the central column by about 120 degrees and (b) four floats, wherein the four floats are distributed circumferentially around the central column by about 90 degrees (Four floating bodies 4a-4d are distributed around a central column 3 and separated from each other by 90 degrees, para. [0018], figure 3). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify D1 to include four floats, wherein the four floats are distributed circumferentially around the central column by about 90 degrees 33 taught by D2 to facilitate improved the stability of the floating structure, especially since D1 is not limited to only three floats and discloses that its device can comprise (not consist of) a plurality of columns/floats. In view of the foregoing, it would have been considered 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 to provide such feature(s) to facilitate improved stability of the device with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
24. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references cited by the examiner disclose various offshore wind turbine platforms.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Q Jimenez, who can be reached at phone number (571) 272-4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
26. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
07/09/2026
Prosecution Insights