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 claims filed 11/11/2024.
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, 12, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2 789 847, hereinafter 847.
Regarding claim 1, 847 discloses:
A floating wind turbine installation, comprising an asymmetric floating wind turbine structure tethered to the floor of a body of water by a mooring system (see fig 1), wherein: the floating wind turbine structure comprises a wind turbine mounted on a semi- submersible floating platform (see fig 1), and the floating wind turbine structure is held in position by the mooring system such that the wind turbine is positioned on an upwind side of the centre of mass of the floating wind turbine structure in the direction of the prevailing wind at the location of the wind turbine installation (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, 847 discloses:
A floating wind turbine installation as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wind turbine is positioned substantially directly upwind of the centre of mass of the floating wind turbine structure in the direction of the prevailing wind (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, 847 discloses:
A floating wind turbine installation as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mooring system comprises a plurality of mooring lines connected, directly or indirectly, to the floating wind turbine structure (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, 847 discloses:
A floating wind turbine installation as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mooring system is an asymmetric mooring system (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, 847 discloses:
A floating wind turbine installation as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wind turbine comprises a tower and a rotor mounted at an upper end of the tower, wherein the rotor comprises a rotor hub and a plurality of blades mounted to the hub (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, 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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2 789 847, hereinafter 847.
Regarding claim 2, 847 discloses the wind turbine of claim 1 and figure 1 shows a wind turbine facing the direction of the wind, but does not directly disclose that the angle between the prevailing wind direction and a straight line passing through the position of the wind turbine and the centre of mass of the floating wind turbine installation is 60° or less. One of ordinary skill in the art would select such an angle because wind turbines are not effective when installed to face a direction other than the prevailing wind direction.
Claims 4-7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2 789 847, hereinafter 847 in view of Ludwigsson et al. (US PG Pub 2023/0160368).
Regarding claim 4, 847 discloses the wind turbine of claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the semi-submersible floating platform comprises three columns connected by connecting members in a ring configuration. Ludwigsson teaches a substantially similar device wherein the semi-submersible floating platform comprises three columns connected by connecting members in a ring configuration (see fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the ring configuration of Ludwigsson with the wind turbine of 847 yielding the predictable result of providing enhanced strength to the floating columns.
Regarding claim 5, 847 as modified discloses:
A floating wind turbine installation as claimed in claim 4, wherein the wind turbine is supported on one of the columns of the semi-submersible floating platform (see 847 fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, 847 as modified discloses:
A floating wind turbine installation as claimed in claim 5, wherein the mooring system comprises four mooring lines connected to the floating wind turbine structure, wherein two mooring lines of the four mooring lines are connected to the column supporting the wind turbine, and wherein the other two mooring lines of the four mooring lines are respectively connected to a different one of the other two of the three columns (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, 847 as modified discloses:
A floating wind turbine installation as claimed in claim 6, wherein the mooring lines are connected directly to the floating wind turbine structure (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 14, 847 as modified discloses the wind turbine of claim 6, but does not disclose:
wherein the mooring lines are catenary mooring lines.
Ludwigsson further teaches utilizing catenary mooring such as an all-chain mooring system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the catenary mooring of Ludwigsson on the wind turbine of 847 yielding the predictable result of providing the ability of the mooring to absorb wave motion.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2 789 847, hereinafter 847 in view of Nadarajah et al. (US 8,689,881).
Regarding claim 13, 847 discloses the wind turbine of claim 12, but does not disclose:
wherein at least one mooring line is connected to the floating wind turbine structure by a bridle.
Nadarajah teaches a mooring line system having bridles connecting the mooring to the structure (see fig 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the bridles of Nadarajah with the wind turbine of 847 yielding the predictable result of providing more stability to the wind turbine.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,606,276. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cover substantially the same limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner’s note: Claims 8-11 and 16 do not have any prior art rejections beyond the double patenting rejection.
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