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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 February 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “9” has been used to designate both “attachment means” and “transporter”.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7 of paragraph 0009, the meaning of “drown drag” is unclear. Examiner has interpreted the aforementioned phrase as “down drag”, as best understood.
In lines 6 - 7 of paragraph 0098, the phrase “The vessel 33 may be a platform supply a vessel” is confusing. It is unclear whether vessel 33 may be a platform or a supply vessel or if the vessel may be a platform supply vessel.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “no weight device are attached” as recited in line 4 of claim 14 should be changed to “no weight device is attached”, “none of the weight devices are attached”, or something similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 - 15 are 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 1, the limitation “two offshore facilities” as recited in lines 10 - 11 is confusing because it is unclear whether the aforementioned offshore facilities refer to two of the “two or more facilities” recited in line 1 or if they represent additional structural limitations.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “at least one offshore facility” as recited in lines 15 - 16 is confusing because it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation refers to one or more of the “two or more facilities” recited in line 1, to one or more of the “two offshore facilities” recited in lines 10 - 11, or it represents additional structural limitation(s).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “a floating foundation”, and the claim also recites “in particular a floating foundation moored to the seabed” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “the buoyancy device”, and the claim also recites “is particularly arranged at the sea surface” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear whether “one or more weight device” as recited in line 2 refers to one or more of the “at least one weight device” as recited in line 5 of claim 1, from which claim 14 depends, or if it represents additional structural limitation(s).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “an offshore facility” as recited in line 10 is confusing because it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation refers to one of the “two facilities” recited in line 1 of claim 15 or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “an further offshore facility” as recited in line 11 is confusing because it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation refers to one of the “two facilities” recited in line 1 of claim 15 or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “at least one offshore facility” as recited in lines 16 - 17 is confusing because it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation refers to at least one of the “two facilities”, to the “offshore facility”, to the “further offshore facility”, or if it represents additional structural limitation(s).
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1, line 8: “the weight device”. It is unclear as to which of the “at least one weight devices” the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 1, line 12: “the seabed” and “the entire or almost the entire distance”
Claim 1, line 14: “the weight device”
Claim 3, line 3: “the offshore facility”. It is unclear as to which of the “two or more facilities” recited in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 4, line 3: “the sea surface”
Claim 5, line 4: “the weight device”
Claim 6, line 2: “the weight device”
Claim 7, line 4: “the buoyancy device”. It is unclear as to which of the “at least one buoyancy device” as recited in lines 2 - 3 of claim 7 the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 7, line 4: “the sea surface”
Claim 8, line 3: “the buoyancy device”
Claim 9, line 2: “the buoyancy device”
Claim 9, line 4: “the buoyancy device”
Claim 10, line 2: “the buoyancy” and “the buoyancy device”
Claim 11, line 2: “the buoyancy device”
Claim 11, line 4: “the cavity” and “the adjustment device”
Claim 11, line 5: “the buoyancy device”
Claim 12, line 3: “the adjustment device”
Claim 12, line 4: “the depth information”
Claim 13, line 4: “the sea” and “the sensor”
Claim 13, line 5: “the depth” and “the section”
Claim 15, line 8: “the sea” and “the weight device”
Claim 15, line 13: “the seabed” and “the entire or almost the entire distance”
Claim 15, line 15: “the weight device”
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.
Claims 1 - 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. (JP 2014093902).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa discloses a facility arrangement comprising two or more facilities (wind power generation facilities 2a, 2b, 2c) and at least one connector (wind power generation wiring system 1) connected to the facilities (2a, 2b, 2c), wherein at least one of the offshore facilities is an offshore wind turbine, wherein the connector comprises a transporter (submarine cable 3) and at least one weight device (weight 6), wherein the transporter is configured for transportation of electricity and/or is used for communication between the facilities, wherein the weight device (6) is attached to the transporter (attached via wire rope 5), wherein the connector is arranged between two offshore facilities, wherein the transporter is floating at a distance from the seabed over the entire or almost the entire distance between the facilities (Fig. 1; abstract; paragraphs 0024 - 0026, 0028, and 0029 of the attached translated description).
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa further discloses the transporter (3) comprises at least one electrical cable (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa further discloses the connector (1) is connected to a floating foundation (unlabeled floating bases of the wind power generation facilities 2a, 2b, 2c, the bases being moored to the seabed via unlabeled mooring lines as shown in Fig. 1) of the offshore facilities (2a, 2b, 2c) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa further discloses the transporter (3) is arranged at least partly below the sea surface (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa further discloses the weight device (6) is a concentrated weight device (sinker 6) that is attached at one or more points to the transporter (3) (Fig. 1; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa further discloses the weight device (6) is arranged on the seabed (Fig. 1; paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa further discloses the connector (1) comprises at least one buoyancy device (floating bodies 4; floating trough 4a; buoys 4b) which is attached to the transporter (3), wherein the buoyancy device (4, 4a, 4b) is arranged floating below the sea surface (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0027 and 0028).
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa further discloses the transporter (3) comprises a first section (section of the cable 3 to which the buoyancy devices 4, 4a, 4b are attached) and a second section (curved section of cable 3 located immediately adjacent the offshore facilities 2a, 2b, 2c), wherein the buoyancy device (4, 4a, 4b) is attached to the first section of the transporter (3) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa further discloses the buoyancy device is a distributed buoyancy device (floating trough 4a) that extends along at least a portion of the transporter (3) and/or the buoyancy device is a concentrated buoyancy device (buoys 4b) that is attached at one or more points to the transporter (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0027 and 0028).
Regarding claim 14, Ishikawa further discloses one or more weight devices (6) are attached to a central section of the transporter (3), wherein no weight devices are attached outside of the central section (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Ishikawa discloses a method for connecting two facilities (2a, 2b) with a connector (1) comprising a transporter (3) and at least one weight device (6), wherein at least one of the offshore facilities (2a, 2b) is an offshore wind turbine, wherein the transporter (3) is configured for transportation of electricity and/or is used for communication between the facilities (2a, 2b), wherein the transporter (3) is arranged in the sea and wherein the weight device (6) is attached to the transporter (3), wherein the connector (1) is connected to an offshore facility (2a) and arranged between the offshore facility (2a) and a further offshore facility (2b), wherein the transporter (3) is arranged floating at a distance from the seabed over the entire distance between the facilities (2a, 2b) (Fig. 1; abstract; paragraphs 0024 - 0029).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. in view of Guy (FR 2686308).
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the buoyancy of the buoyancy device is adjustable by at least one adjustment device. Guy teaches a buoyancy of a buoyancy device (flexible envelope 1 comprising two inflatable pockets 3) is adjustable by at least one adjustment device (valve 9) (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs 0005 and 0007). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the buoyancy device as disclosed above with the adjustable buoyancy device as taught by Guy to allow the depth at which the transporter is located in the water profile to be adjusted to avoid obstacles and to account for changes in water flow conditions.
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the buoyancy device comprises at least one cavity at least partially shielded from water, wherein at least one liquid and/or gaseous medium may be pumped in and/or removed from the cavity by the adjustment device for adjusting the buoyancy of the buoyancy device. Guy teaches the buoyancy device (1, 3) comprises at least one cavity (pockets 3) at least partially shielded from water, wherein a gaseous medium may be pumped in and/or removed from the cavity by the adjustment device (9) for adjusting the buoyancy of the buoyancy device (Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs 0005 and 0007). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the buoyancy device as disclosed above with the adjustable buoyancy device as taught by Guy to allow the depth at which the transporter is located in the water profile to be adjusted to avoid obstacles and to account for changes in water flow conditions.
Claims 10 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. in view of Oosterkamp (US 4,127,006).
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the buoyancy of the buoyancy device is adjustable by at least one adjustment device. Oosterkamp teaches a buoyancy of a buoyancy device (buoyancy tank 9) is adjustable by at least one adjustment device (buoyancy regulating system 19) (Figs. 5A and 5B; abstract; col. 4, line 55 - col. 6, line 44; col. 7, line 57 - col. 8, line 39). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the buoyancy device as disclosed above with the adjustable buoyancy device as taught by Oosterkamp to allow the buoyancy device to maintain a set water depth, irrespective of the forces applied to the tank.
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the buoyancy device comprises at least one cavity at least partially shielded from water, wherein at least one liquid and/or gaseous medium may be pumped in and/or removed from the cavity by the adjustment device for adjusting the buoyancy of the buoyancy device. Oosterkamp teaches the buoyancy device (9) comprises at least one cavity (tank 9) at least partially shielded from water, wherein at least one liquid and/or gaseous medium may be pumped in and/or removed from the cavity by the adjustment device (19) for adjusting the buoyancy of the buoyancy device (Figs. 5A and 5B; abstract; col. 4, line 55 - col. 6, line 44; col. 7, line 57 - col. 8, line 39). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the buoyancy device as disclosed above with the adjustable buoyancy device as taught by Oosterkamp to allow the buoyancy device to maintain a set water depth, irrespective of the forces applied to the tank.
Regarding claim 12, Ishikawa discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control the adjustment device in dependency of the depth information to hold at least the section of the transporter within a predetermined depth range. Oosterkamp teaches a control unit (pressure sensing system), wherein the control unit is configured to control the adjustment device (pressure sensing system commands the buoyancy regulating system 19) in dependency of the depth information to hold at least the section of the transporter within a predetermined depth range (Figs. 5A and 5B; abstract; col. 4, line 55 - col. 6, line 44; col. 7, line 57 - col. 8, line 39). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the buoyancy device as disclosed above with the adjustable buoyancy device as taught by Oosterkamp to allow the buoyancy device to maintain a set water depth, irrespective of the forces applied to the tank.
Regarding claim 13, Ishikawa discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the connector comprises at least one sensor for determining a depth of at least a section of the transporter in the sea, wherein the sensor is configured to communicate a depth information describing the depth of at least the section of the transporter to a further component of the facility arrangement, to at least one of the facilities, and/or to an external communication device. Oosterkamp teaches at least one sensor (pressure sensor) for determining a depth of at least a section of the transporter (pipeline 5) in the sea, wherein the sensor is configured to communicate a depth information describing the depth of at least the section of the transporter to a further component (buoyancy regulating system 19) of the facility arrangement and/or to an external communication device (remote control system) (Figs. 3, 5A, and 5B; abstract; col. 4, line 55 - col. 6, line 44; col. 7, line 57 - col. 8, line 39). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the buoyancy device as disclosed above with the adjustable buoyancy device and the at least one sensor as taught by Oosterkamp to allow the buoyancy device to maintain a set water depth, irrespective of the forces applied to the tank.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
11/18/2025