Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/836,201

FLOATING-TYPE OFFSHORE WIND POWER MOORING SYSTEM CAPABLE OF REDUCING YAW MOTION

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 06, 2024
Examiner
TOLEDO-DURAN, EDWIN J
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Korea Institute Of Ocean Science & Technology
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 766 resolved
+17.2% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
818
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 766 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . 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 1-6 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. As to Claims 1 to 6, the claims recite “floating-type”. The term is indefinite due to the use of “type” which leads to the meets and bounds of the claim being indeterminate. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 recites “the plurality of columns” but “three columns” were claimed before. The limitation should be “the three columns” instead of “the plurality of columns”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 recites “connecting the column to a seabed” but there are “three columns” claimed before which makes the limitation unclear. Appropriate correction is required. As to Claim 6, the claim recites “the column” but there are “three columns” in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeken et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0119081) in view of Skaare (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0257075). As to Claim 1, Loeken discloses a floating-type offshore wind power mooring system capable of reducing a yaw motion, the floating-type offshore wind power mooring system comprising: A floating body (100) having buoyancy at sea; and A wind power generation unit (200) fixed to the floating body (100), Wherein the floating body (100) includes three columns (101, 102, 103) disposed at vertex locations of a triangle, respectively, and three pontoon units (104, 105, 106) disposed in a triangular shape to connect the plurality of columns (101, 102, 103), The wind power generation unit (200) is disposed on any one of the three columns (101), and includes a mooring unit (300a-i) connecting the column to a seabed. However, Loeken is silent about the mooring unit includes a first mooring line, a second mooring line, a third mooring line, and a connection portion, the first mooring line has one end connected to any one of the three columns, the second mooring line has one end connected to another of the three columns, the third mooring line has one end connected to the seabed, the connection portion connects the other end of the first mooring line, the other end of the second mooring line, and the other end of the third mooring line, and when viewed from above, the first mooring line, the second mooring line, and the third mooring line are disposed in a Y shape. Skaare discloses a mooring unit including a first mooring line (Annotated figure A, “first mooring line”), a second mooring line (Annotated figure A, “second mooring line”), a third mooring line (Annotated figure A, “third mooring line”), and a connection portion (Annotated figure A, “connection portion”), the first mooring line (Annotated figure A, “first mooring line”) has one end connected to any one of the three columns (Annotated figure A, “first column”), the second mooring line (Annotated figure A, “second mooring line”) has one end connected to another of the three columns (Annotated figure A, “second column”), the third mooring line has one end connected to the seabed (Paragraph 0011: “For example, an end of each mooring line furthest from the floating wind turbine installation may be connected or anchored to a seabed”), the connection portion (Annotated figure A, “connection portion”) connects the other end of the first mooring line (Annotated figure A, “first mooring line”), the other end of the second mooring line (Annotated figure A, “second mooring line”), and the other end of the third mooring line (Annotated figure A, “third mooring line”), and when viewed from above, the first mooring line, the second mooring line, and the third mooring line are disposed in a Y shape (Figure 2). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the mooring unit include a first mooring line, a second mooring line, a third mooring line, and a connection portion, the first mooring line has one end connected to any one of the three columns, the second mooring line has one end connected to another of the three columns, the third mooring line has one end connected to the seabed, the connection portion connects the other end of the first mooring line, the other end of the second mooring line, and the other end of the third mooring line, and when viewed from above, the first mooring line, the second mooring line, and the third mooring line are disposed in a Y shape. The motivation would have been to increase the yaw stiffness, and therefore reduce yawing, of the system (Paragraph 0006). PNG media_image1.png 782 1002 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure A. Mooring lines (Skaare) As to Claim 3, Loeken as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Loeken as modified also teaches wherein a shape of the first mooring line and a shape of the second mooring line each differ from a shape of the third mooring line (The first and second mooring lines have a longitudinal cross-section of a shorter shape as compared to the longer shape of the longitudinal cross-section of the third mooring line as seen in annotated Figure A). As to Claim 4, Loeken as modified teaches the invention of Claim 3 (Refer to Claim 3 discussion). Loeken as modified also teaches wherein a length of the first mooring line and a length of the second mooring line are the same (The first and second mooring lines have the same length as seen in annotated Figure A). As to Claim 5, Loeken as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Loeken as modified also teaches wherein the mooring unit is disposed to correspond to each of the three pontoon units (Skaare: Figure 2). As to Claim 6, Loeken as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). Loeken as modified also teaches wherein a cross section of the column is polygonal (Loeken: Figure 3a-3b). Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeken et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0119081) in view of Skaare (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0257075); and further in view of McEvoy (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0060413). As to Claim 2, Loeken as modified teaches the invention of Claim 1 (Refer to Claim 1 discussion). However, Loeken as modified is silent about wherein, with respect to a connection point connected to the connection portion, the third mooring line is partitioned into a first area from the seabed to the connection point, and a second area from the connection point to an end of the third mooring line, and the third mooring line is coupled to the connection portion to change a length of the first area and a length of the second area. McEvoy discloses a third mooring line (Figure 14, Figure 21b) partitioned into a first area (Left of 78) from the seabed to a connection point (78), and a second area (Right of 78) from the connection point to an end of the third mooring line, and the third mooring line is coupled to the connection portion to change a length of the first area and a length of the second area (Element 78 expands and contract therefore changing the length of the first and second areas). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to partition the third mooring line into a first area from the seabed to the connection point, and a second area from the connection point to an end of the third mooring line, and the third mooring line is coupled to the connection portion to change a length of the first area and a length of the second area. The motivation would have been to adjust the length of the line as desired. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10:00AM to 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, 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. /EDWIN J TOLEDO-DURAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 06, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595634
FORMWORK DEVICE EQUIPPED WITH A DEVIATION-MEASURING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577748
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR OPTIMIZING REGULATION OF RESERVOIR SEDIMENT DISCHARGING BASED ON ASYNCHRONOUS PROPAGATION CHARACTERISTIC BETWEEN FLOOD PEAK AND SEDIMENT PEAK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571286
UMBILICAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559901
IMPLEMENT AND A METHOD FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION RELATED TO SAID IMPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12545827
COMBINED TREATMENT PROCESS FOR REMOVING AND INHIBITING SCALE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.9%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 766 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