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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the embodiment of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.75(i), where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP §608.01(m).
See example indentations and other minor changes indicated via underlined text in the reproduced version of the claims under the Rejections section for suggested corrections.
Note, the first instance of each unit of measurement referred to in the claims should be in an unabbreviated state for clarity and only abbreviated after the first occurrence. Correct the first instance of MPa, m and any other unit of measure used in the claims please.
Additionally, the claims are objected to because of the following specific informalities:
Claim 1, the following amendment is suggested for clarity:
“wherein two adjacent floating structures have at least one of their peripheral mooring lines crossing each other, and wherein at least one of the crossed peripheral mooring lines comprises a buoyancy element”.
The term “crossed peripheral mooring lines” can then be used to clarify claim 6 as well to read: “Regarding claim 6, discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, wherein the attachment point of each crossed peripheral mooring line comprising the is placed below the submerged buoy.”
In claims 3, 5 and 7-8, the phrases including the term “seabed” should be amended to “configured to” language to clarify that a seabed is not required by the claim and instead the claimed items are capable of the claimed configuration(s) with a seabed. Correction or clarification for each of the above 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Please review all claims for the narrative indefinite language and make the appropriate corrections, i.e., at minimum removing “having”, “being”, “is able to” and “presents” terminology and replacing it current U.S. practice.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 112.
Specifically, claim 1 recites a “windfarm” in the preamble of the claim, but then recites the floating structures are only “designed to receive a wind turbine”. The phrase “designed to receive” renders the claim indefinite as a windfarm requires each of the floating structures comprise a wind turbine. Correction/clarification is required. The remainder of the claims do not cure the deficiency.
Claim 3, recites “ and to which one the common junction point is attached to”. The limitation renders claim 3 indefinite as it is unclear to exactly what “which one” is referring. The claim will be examined as though that particular limitation instead reads “wherein the buoyancy element is a peripheral submerged buoy configured to be moored to a seabed, and wherein the peripheral submerged buoy defines the common junction point”. Claim 4 does not cure the deficiency. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites “a peripheral mooring line attached to the peripheral submerged buoy” in the next to the last line of the claim; The office suggests instead using the article “the” in place of “a” as a peripheral mooring line is already introduced in claim 1 and in the last line of the claim further recites “at least one of these peripheral mooring lines comprises a buoyancy element”; An additional “peripheral mooring line attached to the peripheral submerged buoy” does not appear to be being claimed here and using the article “the” would indicate that. Please correct or clarify.
Claim 6 is rejected as it is unclear if the claim requires “a submerged buoy” -not at all, -in addition to the “buoyancy element’ of claim 1, or -as the same “buoyancy element” of claim 1. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 11 is indefinite as it appears to be un-intentionally missing words, and the office suggests replacing the term “remaining” with “initial” for clarity.
Claim 13 is indefinite as the term “12001 t” appears to be a typo as it appears as 1200 in the specification.
Claim 14 is indefinite as the numerical portion of the claim appears to be unintentionally completely deleted via the translation. The office inserted “20%”from the specification for examination purposes, but please correct or clarify.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Silvert (WO 2008/047011 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Silvert discloses an offshore wind farm (network of floats 1 comprising offshore wind farm depicted in Fig. 4) comprising:
at least four floating structures designed to receive a wind turbine (float 2 at node 42; Fig. 1; the office notes at least four in the farm in Fig. 4), each floating structure comprising at least three mooring lines (flexible links 3);
wherein each mooring line is attached to a mooring point arranged around said floating structure (the office notes the mooring points represented on each float 2 and/or the mooring points on each anchor 5 and/or the mooring points on each ballast 7),
wherein the mooring lines facing inward from the offshore wind farm form the inner mooring lines of the offshore wind farm (the office notes according to the disclosure peripheral items in Fig. 4 are nodes 41 and links 31), and
wherein the mooring lines facing outward from the offshore wind farm form the peripheral mooring lines of the offshore wind farm (the office notes according to the disclosure internal items in Fig. 4 are nodes 42 and links 32);
wherein two adjacent floating structures have at least one of their peripheral mooring lines crossing each other (best seen in Fig. 4 which is annotated below for convenience; the office notes the outer/peripheral mooring lines 3 of adjacent floating structures 2 crossing @immersed ballast 7), and
PNG
media_image1.png
365
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at least one of the crossed peripheral mooring lines comprises a buoyancy element (immersed ballast 7).
Regarding claim 3, Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, wherein the crossing peripheral mooring lines have a common junction point above the seabed (see a portion of Fig. 4 annotated below; the office notes the common junction point is at the submerge ballast 7),
wherein the buoyancy element is a peripheral submerged buoy configured to be moored to the seabed, and wherein the peripheral submerged buoy defines the common junction point wherein the comprises at least one additional mooring line configured to connect the peripheral submerged buoy to a mooring point on the seabed (see the portion of Fig. 4 annotated below; the office notes the additional anchor line is a peripheral node that is configured to be fixed to a seabed by anchors 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
175
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, wherein three adjacent floating structures having at least one of their inner mooring lines having a common junction point above the seabed (the office notes the common junction point at 32 in Fig. 4), this common junction point being attached to a submerged buoy configured to be moored to the seabed (buoy 7 moored to seabed via anchor 5 as detailed on page 2 of the attached translation: the network having at least two peripheral nodes fixed to the seabed by anchors, and at least one or more internal nodes, at least one of which is a useful node… The network has at least two peripheral nodes 4(sub i) fixed to the seabed by anchoring 5, and at least one internal node 4(sub 2)).
Regarding claim 7, Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, wherein the submerged buoy comprises a flexible tether having a limited height configured to be moored to a seabed (as is evidenced by the term flexible links 3; see also the reproduced excerpt in the rejection of claim 5 above – the flexible tether is configured to be moored to a seabed via anchor 5).
Regarding claim 9, Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, wherein the mooring lines of the floating structures form a hexagonal pattern (Fig. 4).
Specifically, regarding claims 2 and 6;
Claims 1-2, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (CN 210653580 U), cited by Applicant, hereinafter Pan (note a translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Pan discloses an offshore wind farm (offshore wind power platform group, at least Figs. 5-6) comprising:
at least four floating structures designed to receive a wind turbine (wind power platforms 1 and 3; the office notes at least four in the farm of Fig. 6), each floating structure comprising at least three mooring lines (tensioned mooring line 2);
wherein each mooring line is attached to a mooring point arranged around said floating structure (mooring points 3, Fig. 6),
wherein the mooring lines facing inward from the offshore wind farm form the inner mooring lines of the offshore wind farm (annotated Fig. 6 below), and
wherein the mooring lines facing outward from the offshore wind farm form the peripheral mooring lines of the offshore wind farm (annotated Fig. 6 below);
wherein two adjacent floating structures have at least one of their peripheral mooring lines crossing each other (annotated Fig. 6 below), and
wherein at least one of the crossed peripheral mooring lines comprises a buoyancy element (the office notes mooring berth 3 is floating and therefore a buoyant element).
PNG
media_image3.png
261
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Pan discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, wherein only one of the crossing peripheral mooring lines comprises a buoyancy element in order to pass above the other peripheral mooring line (thew office notes only one of the crossing peripheral mooring lines comprises a buoyancy element as is evidenced by the “shared mooring” detailed in Pan).
Regarding claim 6, Pan discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, wherein the attachment point of each crossed peripheral mooring line comprising the is placed below the submerged buoy (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Pan discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, wherein the mooring lines of the floating structures form a hexagonal pattern (Figs. 5-6).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvert as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the submerged buoy is placed at least at 50 m above the seabed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the distance above the seabed in which the submerged buoy is placed at least 50 m, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The benefit being a mooring cable length that provides optimal mooring behavior and stability for the particular forces transmitted for the specifics of the wind farm that is moored.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvert as applied to claim 1 above, and further, in view of McEvoy (US 2019/0047665 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 1, wherein at least one peripheral mooring line comprises:
a first segment
at least one intermediate segment formed of an elastomeric material attached to the first segment (the office notes the remainder of flexible link 3 that is formed of a flexible elastomeric-like material as is evidenced by the terminology “flexible link”).
Silvert does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the flexible material is an elastomeric material. However, McEvoy teaches a mooring line (Fig. 4) that comprises a first segment that is a metal chain (24) and an intermediate segment that is an elastomeric element (28).
However, it would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as substitution of functional equivalent to substitute the mooring line of Silvert with the mooring line of McEvoy, with a reasonable expectation of success, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). The motivation being obtaining the predictable outcome of enable load reductions and shock protection to be achieved as compared to traditional mooring systems (§[0001], McEvoy).
Regarding claim 11, modified Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 10, wherein the intermediate segment of each of the peripheral mooring lines provides a maximum extension length that is greater than 300 % of the initial length of the intermediate segment of the respective peripheral mooring line (the office notes §[0028] of McEvoy discloses typical elastomeric elements are capable of extensions of up to 400 to 500 percent).
Regarding claim 12, modified Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 10, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the intermediate segment comprises a minimal breaking strength greater than 25 MPa.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the minimal breaking strength greater than 25MPa, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The benefit being a mooring cable that has a minimal breaking strength that is optimal for the particular floating structures and wind turbines moored in the wind farm, and an effective strength for the mooring lines that is optimal for the particular sea in which the farm is moored.
Regarding claim 13, modified Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 10, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the intermediate segment comprises a minimal breaking load greater than 1200 metric ton.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the minimal breaking load greater than 1200 metric ton, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The benefit being a mooring cable that has a minimal breaking load that is optimal for the particular floating structures and wind turbines moored in the wind farm, and an effective minimal breaking load value for the requirements placed on the mooring lines that is optimal for the particular sea in which the farm is moored.
Regarding claim 14, modified Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 10, wherein the intermediate segment comprises a creep lower than 20% (the office notes Silvert teaches a permanent deformation rate of less than 20% as is evidenced by §[0032]: the elastic limit is significantly greater than the threshold tensile load. This ensures that the elastomeric element will be able to repeatedly stretch to the predetermined length with minimal micro crack formation. Otherwise, micro cracks can form which, over repeat elongations, can merge and grow, thereby limiting the lifetime of the elastomeric element. Selecting an elastomeric element(s) with a significantly larger elastic limit means that even if the elastomeric element(s) deteriorates its yield strength is still unlikely to drop below the threshold tensile load).
Regarding claim 15, modified Silvert discloses the offshore wind farm according to claim 10, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the intermediate segment has a cumulative length less than 15 meters.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the cumulative length of the intermediate segment less than 15 meters, or whatever length is found optimal, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The benefit being a cumulative mooring cable length that provides optimal mooring behavior and stability for the particular forces transmitted for the specifics of the wind farm that is moored (i.e., that is found to be optimal for the particular floating structures and wind turbines moored in the wind farm, and an effective length for spacing the floating structures as desired via the mooring lines in the particular sea in which the farm is moored).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicants claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention wherein the peripheral submerged buoy comprises two additional mooring lines, and wherein each additional mooring line is aligned with one of the peripheral mooring lines attached to the peripheral submerged buoy.
The prior art teaches one additional mooring line; And while it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided two additional mooring lines instead of just one for the benefit of redundancy, load balancing and increased mooring strength, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art; arranging the mooring lines so that each additional mooring line is aligned with one of the peripheral mooring lines attached to the peripheral submerged buoy as is detailed in Fig. 4 would not be an obvious modification. Specifically, it would require hindsight reasoning to achieve the arrangement and such a rearrangement of the peripheral mooring lines and two additional mooring lines would most likely destroy the outcome of forces, etc. intended by the specific mooring layout originally disclosed by Silvert.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goold et al. (US 4,774,903) teaches a mooring tether comprising a plurality of members, adjacent ones of the members being connected by first and second pluralities of tension elements, said first and second pluralities of tension elements tending to rotate the members in first and second opposite directions respectively about an axis extending through the members when a force tending to separate the members is applied, for providing torsional stability of the members relative to each other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights