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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 November 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “13” has been used to designate both “flange” and “seabed”; and reference character “4B” has been used to designate both “base portion” and “base”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “23”, “24A”, “24B”, and “24C”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding lines 4 - 5 of page 1, the specification should not rely upon the claims to describe the invention (“a method as per the preamble of the independent claim”).
In line 14 of page 1, “off- shore” should be changed to “offshore”.
In line 22 of page 1, “dis- closes” should be changed to “discloses”.
In line 5 of page 2, “assembly-time” should be changed to “assembly time”.
In line 3 of page 3, the specification should not rely upon the claims to describe the invention.
In line 21 of page 4, “sup- port” should be changed to “support”.
In line 1 of page 5, “pro- vided” should be changed to “provided”.
In line 11 of page 6, “pro- vided” should be changed to “provided”.
In line 1 of page 11, “be- tween” should be changed to “between”.
In line 21 of page 11, “ex- ample” should be changed to “example”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 - 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 33 of claim 1, “a curvature corresponding to a curvature of an outer surface” should be changed to “the curvature corresponding to the curvature of the outer surface”.
In lines 34 - 35 of claim 1: “a first hardening fixation material” should be changed to “the first hardening fixation material”.
In lines 37 - 38 of claim 1, “a second hardening fixation material” should be changed to “the second hardening fixation material”.
In line 41 of claim 1, “a curvature corresponding to a curvature of an outer surface” should be changed to “the curvature corresponding to the curvature of the outer surface”.
In lines 42 - 43 of claim 1: “a first hardening fixation material” should be changed to “the first hardening fixation material”.
In lines 45 - 46 of claim 1, “a second hardening fixation material” should be changed to “the second hardening fixation material”.
In line 3 of claim 4, “the” should be inserted before “concrete”.
In line 4 of claim 5, “first and second interlock part” should be changed to “first and second interlock parts”, “first interlock part and the second interlock part”, or something similar.
In line 3 of claim 6, “material” should be changed to “materials”.
In line 5 of claim 8, Examiner suggests changing “the surface (14)” to “the outer surface (14)” for consistency with terminology used elsewhere in the claims.
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 - 13 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether all of the N first braces and N second braces are paired or if only a subset of the N first braces and N second braces comprise pair(s) of braces.
Regarding claim 4, the use of the term “its” as recited in line 6 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which structural element or limitation the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name. Claim 7 contains a similar error.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “by the third braces” as recited in line 3 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation means “near/adjacent the third braces” or “using the third braces”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “onshore or on land” as recited in line 3 is confusing because “onshore” and “on land” mean the same thing.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1, line 7: “the first brace”. It is unclear as to which of the first braces the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 1, lines 8 - 9: “the second brace”. It is unclear as to which of the second braces the aforementioned limitation is referring.
Claim 1, line 10: “the second brace” and “the first brace”
Claim 1, lines 13 - 14: “the combination”
Claim 1, line 14: “the first brace” and “the second brace”
Claim 1, line 15: “the N pairs of braces”
Claim 1, line 17: “the vertical central axis”
Claim 1, line 28: “the first brace”
Claim 1, line 29: “the first brace”
Claim 1, lines 30 - 31: “the first brace”
Claim 1, line 31: “the fixation material”
Claim 1, line 36: “the second brace”
Claim 1, line 37: “the second brace”
Claim 1, line 39: “the second brace”
Claim 1, line 41: “the first brace”
Claim 1, line 42: “the first brace”
Claim 1, line 44: “the second brace”
Claim 1, line 45: “the second brace”
Claim 1, lines 46 - 47: “the second brace”
Claim 3, line 2: “the base”. The aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “the base portion”, as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 4, line 4: “the base”. The aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “the base portion”, as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 4, line 6: “the concrete”
Claim 11, line 3: “the first brace”
Claim 11, line 4: “the first brace”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Meek et al. (US 4557629) teaches a vertical tower support and first and second braces extending therefrom forming triangles, wherein the second braces are connected to the tower support and the first braces are connected to the tower and to respective second braces.
Nei et al. (US 4,245,928) teaches a tower support having braces that are connected at their ends to the tower support via a shell unit and grout connection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
3/6/2026