DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits of application 18849903.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 5-6 and 15 is 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.
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 5 recites the broad recitation “heave plate is deployable”, and the claim also recites “in particular by rotation” 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.
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “anchoring equipment”, and the claim also recites “preferably a friction pad and/or a suction device.” 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.
Claim 15 recites the broad recitation “wind turbine equipment”, and the claim also recites “in particular a blade.” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 7-8, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Loken WO 2020167137.
Claim 1, Loken discloses An offshore floating intervention platform [4600], intended to temporarily dock on an offshore wind turbine platform [3000] to carry out an installation and/or maintenance intervention on a wind turbine [200], the intervention platform [4600] comprising - a floating base [4603], having a lower surface [bottom of 4603] intended to be immersed in a body of water ; - at least a wind turbine equipment lifting tower [4601], configured to lift at least an equipment of the wind turbine [200];wherein the offshore floating intervention platform [4600] has at least a heave plate [4603 is not only a base but a fork lift style device Fig. 50] configured to protrude laterally from the floating base [4603], the at least one heave plate [4603] defining an upper surface [top of 4603] configured to engage a lower surface of the offshore wind turbine platform [3000], the floating base [4603] having at least a ballast receiving volume [ballast tanks (not shown) referred to as part of switching tool 5700 via 4603], the offshore floating intervention platform [3000] having a ballast controller [inherent] configured to control a quantity of ballast received in the ballast receiving volume [ballast tanks] to lift the upper surface of the offshore heave plate [4603] in contact with the lower surface of a offshore wind turbine platform [3000].
Claim 2, Loken discloses wherein the floating base [4503 figs. 70-71] comprises at least three floating columns [101-103], and frame elements [107] connecting the at least three floating columns, the at least one heave plate [4603] protruding from at least one of the three floating columns.
Claim 3, Loken discloses comprising at least two heave plates [4603] configured to protrude from adjacent floating columns of the floating base. See fig. 50/70.
Claim 4, Loken discloses wherein the at least one heave plate [4603] is configured to protrude in register with the lower surface of the floating base [4503], or/and from the lower surface of the floating base [4503]. See figs. 50 & 70
Claim 5, Loken discloses wherein the at least one heave plate [4603] is deployable from the floating base [4503], in particular by rotation or telescopically. The reference states it moves like a fork lift thus it inherently has telescopic like movement.
Claim 7, Loken discloses at least a contact arm [5700 fig. 54] configured to protrude from the floating base [4503], above the heave plate [4603], to contact the offshore wind turbine platform [3000].
Claim 8, Loken discloses wherein the at least one connecting arm [5700 fig. 54] has a free end equipped with connecting equipment [5701] configured to reversibly connect to the offshore wind turbine platform [3000], the connecting equipment being a mechanical, suction and/or magnetic connection equipment. See figs 54-55
Claim 10, Loken discloses at least a mooring equipment [5701-5702] comprising a mooring winch and at least a mooring line deployable from the offshore floating intervention platform [4600] to moor to the offshore wind turbine platform [3000].
Claim 11, Loken discloses a deck [4602 fig. 50], carried by the floating base [4603], and a wind turbine equipment storage having a wind turbine equipment rack located on the deck. The reference discloses using the deck space for storage of repair parts, a rack or storage means would be inherent to store the spare parts.
Claim 12, Loken discloses docked on the offshore wind turbine platform [3000], an upper surface of the heave plate [4603] being engaged on a lower surface of the offshore wind turbine platform. See fig. 50-53
Claim 13, Loken discloses wherein the offshore wind turbine platform [3000] is a floating offshore wind turbine platform comprising a floating foundation [1504-1506 fig. 39] having at least three floating columns [6001-6003], and frame elements [truss 5007 fig. 10] connecting the at least three floating columns, the at least three floating columns defining at least part of the lower surface of the floating offshore wind turbine platform [3000], the heave plate [4603] being engaged beneath a floating column of the floating offshore wind turbine platform. See figs. 10, 50.
As per method claim 14-15, Loken discloses all the method steps of the claims since all the components are listed in the prior art and rejected in the above claims. It has been held that under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform or be made by the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out or being made by the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform or be made by the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
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) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loken et al.
Claim 6, Loken discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he also discloses wherein the upper surface of the at least one heave plate [4603] carries an anchoring equipment configured to limit or suppress movement between the upper surface of the at least one heave plate and the lower surface of the offshore wind turbine platform [3000], He does not disclose the anchoring equipment being preferably a friction pad and/or a suction device. He discloses the anchoring equipment being ropes or magnets which are suitable substitutes. Thus, it 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 to have modified Loken to use the above said anchoring means for its simplicity to moor the wind turbine platform.
Claim 9, Loken discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose the offshore floating intervention platform comprising at least a propeller protruding from the lower surface of the floating base. He discloses a vessel sails the intervention platform to the wind turbine platform and vessels mainly use propellers for propulsion. So it 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 to have modified Loken to use a propeller attached to the platform to facilitate sailing to the wind turbine platform to decrease cost operation wherein the vessel is not required for transport.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F.
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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights