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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s amendments filed 9/8/2026.
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 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 1-3, 8-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mansour (US 8,387,550).
Regarding claim 1, Mansour discloses:
A floating structure, comprising: a plurality of columns providing buoyancy (see fig 1, ref 12); and a connecting body (20) connecting the plurality of columns; wherein at least one of the plurality of columns comprises: a plurality of column bodies (14) connected to each other, and a hollow portion formed surrounded by the plurality of column bodies (see fig 2), wherein the connecting body comprises: an equipment support portion (21) supporting equipment; a plurality of column support portions (see fig 1 – bottom portion of columns 12 adjacent to 20) disposed at positions spaced apart by a predetermined distance from the equipment support portion (see fig 1), each supporting a lower surface of the plurality of columns (see fig 1); and a support connection portion connecting the equipment support portion and the plurality of column support portions (columns 12 connect 20 to 21), wherein each of the plurality of column support portions is formed with a connecting hole penetrating in a vertical direction (see fig 1 – dashed portion at 13), and wherein the connecting hole is formed at a position corresponding to the hollow portion and is connected to the hollow portion (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 2, Mansour discloses:
The floating structure of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of column bodies includes: an upper surface portion having a polygonal shape, a lower surface portion having the same shape as the upper surface portion, and a side portion connecting the upper surface portion and the lower surface portion, wherein the plurality of column bodies are connected to each other by contacting adjacent side portions of the plurality of column bodies (see at least fig 10).
Regarding claim 3, Mansour discloses:
The floating structure of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of column bodies is formed extending in a first direction, the plurality of column bodies are arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and a portion of the hollow portion is filled with seawater (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 8, Mansour discloses:
The floating structure of claim 1, wherein the hollow portion has a circular shape in horizontal cross-section (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Mansour discloses:
The floating structure of claim 1, wherein the hollow portion has a polygonal shape in the horizontal cross-section (see fig 8).
Regarding claim 10, Mansour discloses:
The floating structure of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of column bodies has a circular shape in the horizontal cross-section (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 11, Mansour discloses:
The floating structure of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of column bodies has a polygonal shape in the horizontal cross-section (see fig 10).
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansour (US 8,387,550).
Regarding claim 12, Mansour discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the hollow portion has different cross-sectional areas depending on the height.
Regarding the above limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the shape of the column body cross-sectional area to be different depending on height, because there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1956).
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the claimed shape, because applicant has not disclosed that having such a shape itself solves any stated problem, the claimed shape does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the column body is of another shape, such as a hourglass. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed shape, and thus selecting the claimed shape would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Mansour discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the lower surface portion has a different area from the upper surface portion.
Regarding the above limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the shape of the column body to be tapered, because there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1956).
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the claimed shape, because applicant has not disclosed that having such a shape itself solves any stated problem, the claimed shape does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the column body is of another shape, such as a hourglass. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed shape, and thus selecting the claimed shape would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansour (US 8,387,550) in view of FR 3086636, hereinafter 636.
Regarding claim 15, 636 discloses the device of claim 14, but does not disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of column bodies includes: an upper surface portion having a polygonal shape, a lower surface portion having the same shape as the upper surface portion, and a side portion connecting the upper surface portion and the lower surface portion, wherein the plurality of column bodies are connected to each other by contacting adjacent side portions of the plurality of column bodies. Mansour teaches that support columns can have many different shapes including polygonal ends and sides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a polygonal shape as taught by Mansour because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the shape of the column body to be tapered, because there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1956).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments have been considered. New rejections of the claims now cover the amended claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm EST.
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 Collins can be reached on 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights