Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/718,331

MOORING DEVICE FOR AN OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 10, 2024
Examiner
LAGMAN, FREDERICK LYNDON
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
TotalEnergies OneTech SAS
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1334 granted / 1610 resolved
+30.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1648
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1610 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim 16, hence claim 17-32 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. Claim 16, line 10, the recitation of “can vary” renders the claim indefinite. (emphasis added). It appears that “can vary” should be--varies--. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the forces" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As to claim 17, at line 2, it is unclear if “a same central connection point” is the same as “an attachment point” as in claim 1, line 8. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the central connection point” is the same as “a same central connection point”. Applicant needs to be consistent with claim terminology. 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. Claim(s) 16-20, 23-25, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qu (WO 2015/039483). As to claim 16, Qu discloses a mooring device (see Figs. 1 and 16 to 19) suitable for an offshore wind turbine, the mooring device comprising at least two mooring lines (made of line 3 or line 3 and 46) comprising a first end configured to be attached to a first attachment point of a floating offshore wind turbine platform, and at least three anchoring elements (4) configured to anchor the floating offshore wind turbine to a seabed, wherein each mooring line (3) is flexibly retained through at least one anchoring element (using pulleys 2 fixed to anchors 4), a second end of the mooring lines (3) being attached to an attachment point (submarine buoys 1) in order that a first mooring line length extending between the floating offshore wind turbine platform (first mooring line lengths are shown in Figs. 1 and 16 to 18) and the anchoring element (4) can vary in function of the forces exerted on the floating offshore wind turbine platform (length is varying as explained in paragraphs [0160] to [0162] describing Fig. 1 ). As to claim 17, Qu discloses (Fig. 1) second ends of the mooring lines linked to the same central connection point and a second mooring line length extending between the central connection point (7) and the anchoring element (4). As to claim 18, Qu discloses a central connection point comprising a buoying device (7 is described as a mooring buoy). As to claim 19, Qu discloses a central connection point anchored to the seabed (through anchors 4). As to claim 20, Qu discloses a central connection point configured to be linked to a floating offshore wind turbine (Fig. 1 is applicable to an offshore wind turbine as mentioned in paragraph [0032]). As to claim 23, Qu discloses (Figs. 16 to 18) second ends of the mooring lines 3 attached to a different buoying device 1. As to claim 24 and 31, Qu discloses (Figs. 16 to 18) mooring lines 3 equipped with buoying devices 1. Fig. 19 shows mooring line portions (sub-anchor ropes 46 and portion of line 3) located between the anchoring elements 4 and the second attachments 22 equipped with a buoying device 1. As to claim 25, Qu discloses wherein at least one anchoring element 4 comprises a pulley 2 having at least two degrees of freedom. As to claim 29, Qu discloses an offshore wind turbine comprising a turbine, a platform and a mooring device (see Figs. 16-18 and paragraph [0032]). 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. Claim(s) 22, 26-28, 30, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu (WO 2015/039483). As to claim 22, Qu discloses (Fig. 17) mooring lines passing through a first and a second anchoring element. Fig. 17 does not show the mooring line being linked to a second attachment point of the offshore wind turbine platform. However since Qu suggests to connect the submarine buoys 1 to the platform with an auxiliary rope 46 (see Fig. 15) in order to increase the mooring force, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would consider this option for the arrangement of Fig. 17 and arrive at the mooring device without the exercise of inventive skill. As to claims 26, 28 and 32, the provision of a bracket and buckle would have been obvious matter of design choice, since a bracket and buckle relate to slight constructional changes that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Since doing so provides the expected benefit of mooring an offshore platform. As to claim 27, Qu does not disclose a sacrificial anode. However since Qu mentions in paragraph [0173] that the pulleys can be made of steel, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would consider the use of a sacrificial anode without the exercise of inventive skill since it belongs to customary practice in the field (see paragraph [0034] of D3). As to claim 30, Qu discloses (Fig. 19) a tether 64 connecting a floating platform to a central connection point (connection point on central anchor 4) for an offshore platform. The offshore platform of Fig. 19 is not a wind turbine platform. However since Qu shows offshore wind turbine platforms in (Figs. 16 to 18) with similar mooring systems, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would consider the arrangement of Fig. 19 as an alternative to the ones of Figs. 16 to 18 without the exercise of inventive skill, the length of the tether being determined by normal design procedures. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: as to claim 21, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the central connection point comprises a tie in point to which the second end of at least two mooring lines are linked, the tie-in point comprises a connection port for a tether linking the central connection point to the floating offshore wind turbine platform. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-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, 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. /FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 10, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601126
HYBRID POWERTRAIN FOR PLANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600436
MOORING SYSTEMS FOR FIXED MARINE STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595719
EFFICIENT SURFACE AND DOWNHOLE HEATING OF INJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577855
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MICROBUBBLE AND NANOBUBBLE CO2 AND OTHER GAS DISSOLUTION AND SEQUESTRATION IN GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565824
INTEGRATED CARBON SEQUESTRATION INJECTION CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+11.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1610 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month