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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please replace the word “axis” in line 2 of the claim with “axes”.
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 1-3, 13 and 14 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 1-3, 13 and 14 recites in the preamble the subcombination of an “offshore floating intervention platform” that is inconsistent with the body of the claim that recites limitations directed to the combination of the “offshore floating intervention platform” and “floating offshore wind turbine platform” and “wind turbine equipment”. This inconsistency presents the question as to whether the claim recites a combination or subcombination. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation that is directed to the combination rather than to the subcombination because a “floating offshore wind turbine platform” and “wind turbine equipment” are not an inherent component of the “offshore floating intervention platform”. Claims 4-12 which are dependent on claim 1 are similarly rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Roodenburg et al. (WO 2011028102 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Roodenburg teaches an offshore floating intervention platform (Figures 1-16) intended to dock on a floating offshore wind turbine platform to carry out an installation and/or maintenance intervention (intended use), the offshore floating intervention platform comprising: - a floating base (abstract: “floating hull”), having at least a lower surface (Figures 1-16) intended to be immersed in a body of water (intended use. Abstract: “offshore”, “floating hull”. Page 26, line 29- Page 27, line 15); - at least a wind turbine equipment lifting tower (element 200), having at least a lifting unit (Figures 1-16) comprising: a mast (element 202), a wind turbine equipment elevator (elements 205, 206) configured to vertically move along the mast between a lower loading/unloading position and at least an upper intervention position (Page 27, lines 25-31. Page 28, lines 14-28) and a lifting actuator (Page 27, lines 25-31. Page 28, lines 14-28), configured to move the wind turbine equipment elevator (elements 205 and 206) between the lower unloading/loading position and the at least one upper intervention position (Figures 1-16); characterized in that the at least one lifting unit comprises at least a position compensation device (Page 28, lines 1-18) configured to be activated in the loading/unloading position and/or in the at least one intervention position to compensate local vertical displacements between the offshore floating intervention platform and the floating offshore wind turbine platform (Page 28, lines 1-18) when the offshore floating intervention platform is docked to the floating offshore wind turbine platform (Page 28, lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 2, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the position compensation device comprises at least a controller of the lifting actuator (Page 26, line 29- page 31, line 12. “hoisting device is adapted to support and to raise and lower in a controllable manner”), configured to control the lifting actuator to generate vertical compensation movements of the equipment elevator in response to local vertical displacements between the offshore floating intervention platform and the floating offshore wind turbine platform (Page 5, lines 8- Page 7, line 24. Page 26, line 29- page 31, line 12, “heave compensation device adapted to compensate for sea-state induced vertical displacement”).
Regarding claim 3, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein the position compensation device comprises at least a sensor configured to provide data representative of a local vertical displacement between the offshore floating intervention platform and the floating offshore wind turbine platform, the controller being configured to receive data representative of the local vertical displacement from the sensor (Abstract. Page 5, lines 8- Page 7, line 24. Page 26, line 29- page 31, line 12).
Regarding claim 4, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the equipment elevator comprises a boom arm protruding from the mast (Figures 1-16), and a grab cradle (elements 450), carried by the boom arm (Figures 1-16), the grab cradle defining at least a wind turbine equipment housing defining a wind turbine equipment storage axis (Abstract. Figures 1-16. Page 29, lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 6, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 4, wherein the grab cradle is configured to translate along the boom arm (abstract. Figures 1-16).
Regarding claim 7, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 4, wherein the grab cradle comprises a transverse displacer, configured to move a wind turbine equipment carried in the housing along the storage axis (the grab cradle comprises articulating claws (i.e. transverse displacers) and may move wind turbine equipment along the axis inasmuch as applicant has claimed as cited in response to claim 4).
Regarding claim 8, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 4, wherein the grab cradle has a rotation displacer, configured to rotate a wind turbine equipment carried in the housing about the equipment storage axis (Page 39, line 25- Page 40, line 18 inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 9, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 4, wherein the lifting unit comprises an additional position compensation device mounted between the boom arm and the grab cradle, the additional position compensation device being configured to be activated in the unloading/loading position or/and in the at least one intervention position to compensate local displacements between the offshore floating intervention platform and the floating offshore wind turbine platform when the offshore floating intervention platform is docked to the floating offshore wind turbine platform (Figures 1-16. Abstract. Page 5, lines 8- Page 7, line 24. Page 26, line 29- page 31, line 12).
Regarding claim 10, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the equipment lifting tower comprises at least two lifting units (Figures 1-16), each comprising a mast (Figures 1-16, elements 202, 203), an equipment elevator (Figures 1-16, elements 205, 205’, 206) configured to move vertically along the mast (Figures 1-16), and a lifting actuator configured to actuate movement of the equipment elevator, the lifting actuators of the two lifting units being independently operable (Figures 1-16. Abstract. Page 5, lines 8- Page 7, line 24. Page 26, line 29- page 31, line 12).
Regarding claim 11, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 10, wherein the masts of the lifting units have parallel axis (Figures 1-16), or at least a mast of one lifting unit has an axis inclined with regard to an axis of a mast of another lifting unit (elements 605 and 900 satisfy this limitation).
Regarding claim 12, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the lifting actuator comprises a rack and pinion mechanism, an hydraulic mechanism, a pneumatic mechanism or a winch mechanism (Figures 1-16. Abstract. Page 5, lines 8- Page 7, line 24. Page 26, line 29- page 31, line 12).
Examiner’s note: Independent claim 1 is written broadly such that the claims would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over at least the following documents:
Yoshimoto et al. (JP 2015168485 A)- Figures 1-6. ¶[0025-0033, 0042, 0052].
Moeller (WO 2018228809 A1)- Figures 1-5. Page 13, line 20- Page 15, line 24.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg et al. (WO 2011028102 A2).
Regarding claim 13, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the at least one lifting unit comprises at least a washing unit configured to surround the wind turbine equipment and to move along the wind turbine equipment and/or the at least one lifting unit comprises at least a reinforcing unit configured to surround the wind turbine equipment and to move along the wind turbine equipment to mechanically reinforce the wind turbine equipment (Examiner takes official notices that hoisted/controlled descent washing systems like Bosun’s chairs are well known in the maritime arts, see Wikipedia-Bosun’s chair for extrinsic supporting evidence). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to suggest that a bosun’s chair may be operatively attached to Roodenburg’s elevating grab cradle which surrounds and supports the wind turbine mast, in order to wash the wind turbine.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg et al. (WO 2011028102 A2) in view of Hoydal et al. (US 20250020105 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Roodenburg teaches the invention in claim 4, but fails to specifically teach wherein the boom arm is telescopic, the grab cradle being movable away from the mast by telescopic deployment of the boom arm. However, use of telescopic boom arms in conjunction with grab cradles are well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 2-5 of Hoydal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a telescoping boom arm to Roodenburg’s grab cradle, in order to provide an extended reach and mobility potential between the turbine lifting tower masts and a wind tower mast.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg et al. (WO 2011028102 A2) in view of Yoshimoto et al. (JP 2015168485 A).
Regarding claim 14, Roodenburg teaches an assembly comprising a floating offshore wind turbine platform, and an offshore floating intervention platform according to claim 1, removably docked to the offshore wind turbine platform (Figures 1-16). Roodenburg fails to teach wherein the offshore wind turbine platform is floating. However, use of offshore floating intervention platforms on floating wind turbine platforms are well known in the art as evidenced by the analogous system taught in Figures 1-6B and ¶[0025-0033, 0042, 0052) of Yoshimoto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate Yoshimoto’s floating docking technique into the Roodenburg’s windmill docking methods, in order to facilitate windmill docking operations in deeper waters further offshore that do not permit seabed foundation systems.
Regarding claim 15, Roodenburg teaches an intervention method comprising: - docking the offshore floating intervention platform according to claim 1 (Page 27, lines 25-31. Page 28, lines 1-28), to an offshore wind turbine platform (Figures 1-16. Abstract. Page 27, lines 25-31. Page 28, lines 1-28); - placing the wind turbine equipment elevator in one of the lower unloading/loading position or of the at least one upper intervention position (Page 27, lines 25-31. Page 28, lines 1-28); - activating the position compensation device in the loading/unloading position or in the at least one intervention position to compensate local vertical displacements between the offshore floating intervention platform and the offshore wind turbine platform (Abstract. Page 27, lines 25-31. Page 28, lines 1-28), - carrying out an installation and/or maintenance intervention on a wind turbine (20) of the floating offshore wind turbine platform (Abstract. Page 27, lines 25-31. Page 28, lines 1-28). Roodenburg fails to teach wherein the offshore wind turbine platform is floating. However, use of offshore floating intervention platforms on floating wind turbine platforms are well known in the art as evidenced by the analogous system taught in Figures 1-6B and ¶[0025-0033, 0042, 0052) of Yoshimoto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate Yoshimoto’s floating docking technique into the Roodenburg’s windmill docking methods, in order to facilitate windmill docking operations in deeper waters further offshore that do not permit seabed foundation systems.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roodenburg et al. (WO 2011028102 A2) in view of Yoshimoto et al. (JP 2015168485 A) and Moeller (WO2018228809A1).
Regarding claim 16, Roodenburg in view of Yoshimoto teaches the invention in claim 15, comprising moving the elevator between the lower unloading/loading position and the at least one intervention position (Figures 1-16. Abstract. Page 5, lines 8- Page 7, line 24. Page 26, line 29- page 31, line 12). Roodenburg in view of Yoshimoto fails to specifically teach the position compensation device being deactivated during the displacement of the elevator between the lower unloading/loading position and the at least one intervention position. However, Moeller teaches an analogous wind turbine docking and maintenance system wherein the position compensation device may be deactivated while minor elevation displacements are conducted (Page 14, lines 25-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the wind turbine maintenance displacement techniques taught by Moeller into Roodenburg’s system, in order to iteratively install and correct for movement or displacement without exacerbating sea-induced motion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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 D Collins can be reached at 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights