DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on CON application 18895857.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim states “a buoyant a buoyant”. Appropriate correction is required. One of the “a buoyant” must be removed.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartmin WO 2019076586, and further in view of Lee US 20120263543.
Claim 1, Bartmin discloses a system, comprising: a monopile [2] that includes a first end embedded into a seabed [M]; a buoyant structure [6] that is integrated into the monopile; a platform [top of structure 6] to host a wind turbine [1] structure, the platform coupled to the monopile [2] see figs. 1-2, He does also disclose one or more anchors [11a] attached to a seabed [M]; and one or more moorings [11c] that include a first end coupled to one of one or more attachments points on at least one of the monopile [2] and a second end coupled to at one of the one or more anchors [11a], he does not disclose wherein the one or more moorings restricts movement of the platform in six degrees of freedom. Lee discloses wherein the wind turbine platform anchor system restricts movement of the platform in six degrees of freedom. See figs. 1-6 and Abstract. 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 Bartmin with Lee to provide increased stability to a platform.
Claims 2-3, Bartmin discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose wherein the one or more anchors are attached to the seabed that is between a depth of about forty meters and two hundred meters under a surface of water or the seabed is between a depth of about twenty meters and one hundred twenty meters under a surface of water. However, he does disclose there is water depth between platform and the seabed, it has been held that finding an optimal range is of ordinary skill in the art. Since range of the depth of water between the platform and seabed and the depth of seabed is just a matter of a range choice 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 use said range choice as a matter of design preference for the depth draft of the wind turbine platform stability.
Claim 4-5, Bartmin discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose a first mooring of the one or more moorings is coupled to a first attachment point at a first elevation and at least a second mooring of the one or more moorings is coupled to a second attachment point at a second elevation, the first elevation different from the second elevation; or the first mooring and the second mooring are rotated about the first attachment point and the second attachment point to restrain surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw. Lee discloses the above limitations in fig. 6 [0048]. 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 Bartmin with Lee to provide increased stability to the platform by use of the said configuration.
Claim 6, Bartmin discloses wherein the buoyant structure [6] is an air can. See fig. 1; as described in applicant’s disclosure an air can is a buoyant structure (also termed as “hull” or “air can”) with deck [platform top].
Claim 7, Bartmin discloses an electrical equipment payload [wind turbine in fig. 1] mounted rigidly on top of the buoyant structure [6].
Claim 8, Bartmin discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose a first mooring of the one or more moorings in a vertical orientation with respect to the buoyant structure, and a second mooring of the one or more moorings inclined at an angle with respect to the buoyant structure. Lee discloses this limitation in fig. 2, 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 Bartmin with Lee to provide increased stability to the platform by use of the said configuration.
Claim 9, Bartmin discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose a first attachment point of the one or more attachments points is outside of water and a second attachment point of the one of the one or more attachment points is under a surface of water. Lee discloses the above said limitations in fig. 6 elevation view. 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 Bartmin with Lee to provide to the restricted degree of freedom of the platform by use of the said configuration.
Claim 10, Bartmin discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose explicitly wherein the moorings are tubular and include vortex induced vibration suppression hardware to mitigate vortex-induced vibration. Lee discloses in the figures the moorings are tubular and include vortex induced vibration suppression hardware to mitigate vortex-induced vibration [0043]. 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 Bartmin with Lee to decrease vibration from sea swells on the wind turbine.
Claim 11, Bartmin discloses at least one of the one or more attachment points [fig. 3b (11b)] are attached to the wind turbine [1] structure.
Claim 12, Bartmin discloses wherein the wind turbine [1] structure further comprises a tower [2], a nacelle, and a rotor hub with blades [5]. See fig. 1 the nacelle and rotor hub are not labeled but attached to the blades.
Claim 13, Bartmin discloses a fully restrained platform, comprising: a monopile [2] that includes a first end [7] embedded into a seabed [M] and a second end [upper tower]; a transition piece rigidity mounted on the second end of the monopile [fig. 3c located between 7 and monopile 2] ; an offshore substation [wind turbine 1] rigidity mounted on the transition piece [fig. 3c]; and a buoyant structure [6] that is integrated into the monopile; one or more anchors [11a] attached to a seabed; and one or more moorings [11c] that include a first end coupled to one of one or more attachments points [11b]; he does not disclose the attachment point on at least one of the transition piece and a second end coupled to at one of the one or more anchors, wherein the one or more moorings restricts movement of the platform in six degrees of freedom. He does however disclose the attachment point higher up on the tower and it has been held that a change of location is of ordinary skill in the art. Lee discloses wherein the wind turbine platform anchor system restricts movement of the platform in six degrees of freedom. See figs. 1-6 and Abstract. 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 Bartmin with Lee to provide increased stability to a platform.
Claim 14, Bartmin discloses wherein the buoyant structure [6] is an air can. See fig. 1; as described in applicant’s disclosure an air can is a buoyant structure (also termed as “hull” or “air can”) with deck [platform top].
Claim 15, Bartmin discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 13, he does not disclose explicitly wherein the moorings are tubular and include vortex induced vibration suppression hardware to mitigate vortex-induced vibration. Lee discloses in the figures the moorings are tubular and include vortex induced vibration suppression hardware to mitigate vortex-induced vibration [0043]. 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 Bartmin with Lee to decrease vibration from sea swells on the wind turbine.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartmin WO 2019076586, and further in view of Lee US 20120263543 and Wind EP 2708742.
Claim 16-17, Bartmin and Lee disclose the aforementioned limitations of claim 13, they do not disclose a tuned damping system that includes a tuned mass damper (TMD/TLD) wherein the tuned damping system is mounted inside one or more of the monopile. However, Wind discloses this limitation in the Abstract. 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 Bartmin and Lee with Wind et al. with the above said dampening to prevent turbine vibrations.
Claim 18, Bartmin discloses the one or more one or more moorings [11c] define taut mooring system that are secured with a vertically loaded anchor [11a]. See fig. 3b
Claim 19, Bartmin and Lee disclose the aforementioned limitations of claim 13, they do not disclose wherein the one or more one or more moorings define a catenary mooring system that are secured with drag embedded anchors on the seabed. It is well known to use catenary mooring systems in floating platforms or naval vessels wherein the mooring line just has slack to it and thus bendable and the use of drag anchors is also well known in the art to embed in the seabed as tension is applied to the mooring line. It has been held that suitable substitutes and preferred design choice is of ordinary skill. 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 Bartmin and Lee’s mooring and anchor with the above said system as the preferred design choice of the user for a more durable system to handle platform sway movements.
Claim 20, Bartmin discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 13, he does not disclose a turbine utility and signal cables coupled between the one or more attachment points and the one or more moorings. Lee discloses this limitation in fig. 10. 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 Bartmin with Lee in order to have increased securement and relieve strain of the mooring lines to the platform.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Because they disclose floating platforms with wind turbines and mooring systems.
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