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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim language “wherein the floating dock is moored at a site” is the positive recitation of a step, the type used in a method step type claim. Appropriate correction is required/suggested, e.g., the office suggests amending to “configured to be moored…”
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 25-27, 29, 34-35, 37-38, 43-47 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leow Ban Tat (SG 10202103429R A), hereinafter Tat.
Regarding claim 25, Tat discloses a floating dock system for deploying and retrieving marine equipment (system comprising apparatus 100), the floating dock system comprising:
a floating dock (apparatus 100, specifically hull portions 106 with supporting legs 104, e.g. u-shaped hull – pg. 9, line 27);
a plurality of lifts on the floating dock (the office notes a plurality of jacks comprising the jacking system operably coupled to the platform; page 9, line 15);
a lift platform positioned adjacent the floating dock (platform 102),
wherein the lift platform comprises an upper deck supported by a plurality of girders (the area configured to receive the asset is an upper deck, pg. 8, line 17 supported by the disclosed beams, see at least page 8, lines 29, 32);
wherein the lifts are coupled with the lift platform and configured to raise and lower the lift platform relative to the floating dock (page 9, line 15).
Regarding claim 26, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the girders extend across an entirety of the width of the lift platform (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the lift platform has a shape and size configured to accommodate foundations of wind turbines (as is evidenced by at least page 34; table 1; “It is to be further appreciated that the reconfigurable mobile docking apparatus according to the invention has various applications including but not limited to Table 1 below: Wind Turbine/Farm”; see asset defined on page 8: “structures, e.g. gravity based foundations and caissons”).
Regarding claim 29, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, comprising two lift platforms, wherein each lift platform is coupled with a plurality of lifts on the floating dock (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 34, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, further comprising a buoyancy tank coupled with the lift platform (120).
Regarding claim 35, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 34, wherein the buoyancy tank is configured to provide the lift platform with buoyancy (pg. 11, line 5).
Regarding claim 37, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the buoyancy tank offsets dead load of the lift platform (The office notes the tanks offset the deadload of the lift platform, pg. 11).
Regarding claim 38, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the lifts are positioned on the floating dock along two sides of the lift platform (the office notes the jacking systems comprise a jacking housing arranged at each hull portion/leg housing of the supporting legs that are positioned along two sides of the lift platform; pg. 10, lines 5-10; at least Fig. 1 and Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 43, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the lifts are configured to raise and lower the lift platform between a first height above a water level and a second height below the water level (as is evidenced by the example on page 26, beginning line 22 and page 33 item b, d and/or f).
Regarding claim 44, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the floating dock at least partially defines a space, and wherein the lift platform is positioned at least partially within the space (u-shaped, page 9, final paragraph; see also first paragraph of page 10).
Regarding claim 45, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the floating dock is moored at a site (the office noted the configuration or position in which the apparatus supporting legs are anchored to the seabed, pg. 9, line 1 via a leg footing or spud configured to be driven into a bottom of a body of water, e.g. seabed for anchoring, pg. 9, line 11).
Regarding claim 46, Tat disclose the floating dock system of claim 45, wherein the site is in proximity to a wind farm (the office notes in the instance cited in claim 27, i.e., the application of the system in which completed fully commissioned wind turbines are transported to a farm for installation, the site anchoring site is in proximity to a wind farm; see page 34, Table 1).
Regarding claim 47, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the floating dock comprises a dry dock space for storage of components of marine equipment (void spaces for equipment housing) and an assembly area for assembly of marine equipment (void spaces for working and operating; page 10, line 11).
Regarding claim 59, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, further comprising multiple buoyancy tanks coupled with the lift platform (at least Fig. 1 and Fig. 10, tanks 102).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2022/262186), hereinafter Ma.
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a floating lift system for launch and recovery of marine equipment (Fig. 1: see also page 38 of attached translation, final two paragraphs, in particular: “a self-elevating exploration platform” “for exploration equipment”), the floating lift system comprising:
a lift platform (1, Fig. 1; pg. 21 of attached pdf), wherein the lift platform has a width and a length (page 38, lines 8-9 from the bottom: The shape, structure and size of the platform 1 can be set according to the exploration requirements), and wherein the lift platform (1) comprises:
an upper deck supported by a plurality of girders (page 38, last paragraph, line 6: “the main deck”; page 39; para. 2; line 3: “strong girders to support strong frame” of the “longitudinal frame type” of the deck of “platform 1”);
a plurality of lifts, wherein the lifts are coupled with the lift platform and configured to raise and lower the lift platform (lifting devices 4, Fig. 1; as is evidenced specifically in the following excerpts from pages 38-39:
“The platform 1 is used to provide a place for exploration operators and exploration equipment, etc., and the legs 2 are used to insert into the seabed to raise the platform 1 from the water surface; the lifting device 4 is arranged on the platform 1, and is used to insert the legs 2 into the seabed or Pull out the pile leg 2 from the seabed; the pile shoe 3 is used to control the depth of the pile leg 2 inserted into the soil, and to improve the stability of the pile leg 2 and the platform 1; …When the platform 1 is in a relatively high sea state, the pile leg 2 is inserted into the seabed through the lifting device 4, so that the platform 1 is raised above the water surface to a certain air gap height, and the platform 1 is not affected by changes in current and tide, which can significantly improve the exploration operation Efficiency”).
Ma does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the lift platform width is at least sixty meters and the lift platform length is at least sixty 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 length and width of the lift platform each at least 60 meters or whatever size is deemed optimal for the particular mission or marine equipment intended for the system, 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 the ability to choose the size of the platform according to the exploration/mission requirements (Ma, page 38, lines 8-9 from the bottom); and/or at least having the capability for the system to be optimally effective for the particular mission it is intended for.
Claims 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavanaugh (US 5,551,366), (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 19, Kavanaugh discloses a method of deploying and retrieving marine equipment (as detailed in the ABSTRACT; see also col. 6, ln. 39: the present invention allows a seaplane S to be removed from the water readily… Yet, the present facility 10 allows the seaplane S to be launched [into the sea/water] in a straightforward manner without the standard complications and hazards), the method comprising:
positioning marine equipment on a lift platform of a floating lift system (specifically on the ramp 24 and turntable 50 of lift platform 12 of the system 10; see at least col. 4, lines 48-67),
wherein the lift platform has a width and a length (col. 4, lines 5-7 for details), and wherein the lift platform comprises an upper deck supported by a plurality of girders (Fig. 1; see at least “upper surface” and structural members 48);
raising the lift platform with a plurality of lifts to retrieve the marine equipment (the office notes lifting the lift platform via at least cable 36 and winch 40 arrangement or powered lifting means, Fig. 1; see paragraph (5)), or lowering the lift platform with the plurality of lifts to deploy the marine equipment (Fig. 1).
Kavanaugh does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the lift platform width is at least sixty meters and the lift platform length is at least sixty 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 length and width of the lift platform each at least 60 meters or whatever size is deemed optimal for the particular mission or marine equipment intended for the system, 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 the ability to choose the size of the platform according to the exploration/mission requirements (Kavanaugh, col. 4, lines 5-7); and/or at least having the capability for the system to be optimally effective for the particular mission it is intended for.
Regarding claim 23, modified Kavanaugh discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising providing a buoyancy to the lift platform offset dead load of the lift platform (float portion 12 and/or tank or float 43, Fig. 2A).
Claims 28, 30 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tat.
Regarding claim 28, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the lift platform (102) is allowed to be reconfigured in accordance with the dimensions and/or shape of the asset/equipment to be transported by the apparatus/floating dock (100) and, more particularly, to allow flexibility in berthing and asset transfer through any selected side of the lift platform by converting an occupied region into an unoccupied region such that an asset may be transferred therethrough (page 14, lines 8-13), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the length and width of the lift platform are equal such that the lift platform/upper deck has a square shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions (i.e., the length and the width) of the platform of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, for example equal dimensions so as to form a square shape. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. The benefit being the predictable outcome of flexibility, e.g., reconfigured in accordance with the dimensions and/or shape of the asset to be transported (Tat).
Regarding claim 30, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the width of the upper deck ranges from sixty meters to one hundred twenty meters, and wherein the length of the upper deck ranges from sixty meters to one hundred twenty meters; instead Tat only discloses that the lift platform is allowed to be reconfigured in accordance with the dimensions and/or shape of the asset to be transported by the docking apparatus and, more particularly, to allow flexibility in berthing and asset transfer through any selected side of the lift platform by converting an occupied region into an unoccupied region such that an asset may be transferred therethrough (page 14, lines 8-13).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions (i.e., the upper deck) of the platform of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, for example a width within a range of sixty meters to one hundred twenty meters, and a length within a range of sixty meters to one hundred twenty meters. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. The benefit being the predictable outcome of flexibility, e.g., reconfigured in accordance with the dimensions and/or shape of the asset to be transported (Tat). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to chosen a range between of sixty meters to one hundred twenty meters for each of the length and the width of the upper deck of the platform, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The benefit being the predictable outcome of flexibility, e.g., reconfigured in accordance with the dimensions and/or shape of the asset to be transported (Tat).
Regarding claim 36, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein the buoyancy tank 120 is movable and/or relocatable to various positions, detachable or removable or dismountable, and re-deployable to provide stability to the lift platform 102 (page 11, lines 13-18), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the buoyancy tank is positioned along a central axis of the lift platform.
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 positioned the buoyancy tank along a central axis of the lift platform, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The benefit being the ability to achieve the predictable and desirable outcome of providing stability to the lift platform.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tat as applied to claim 25 and further in view of Lin et al. US 2018/0229819 A1, hereinafter Lin, (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 32, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the girders comprise box truss girders.
However, Lin teaches a floating dock system in the same field of endeavor including a lift platform (submergence module 9) comprising an upper deck and a plurality of girders (9a-9d), specifically wherein the girders comprise box truss girders (truss members 9c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Tat with the box truss girders as taught by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the girders comprise box truss girders. The benefit being the predictable outcome of a lift platform comprised of a continuous force transmission structure, ensuring the stable operation of the underwater operation platform (Lin §[0040]).
Claims 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tat as applied to claim 25, and further in view of Chambers (US 3,978,676) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 39, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, wherein example jacking systems are not limited, (pg. 9, line 19), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the lifts comprise chain jacks.
However, Chambers teaches a lift/jacking system (ship lifting apparatus, Figs. 2-3) in the same field of endeavor specifically comprising a chain jack (32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lift disclosed by Tat with the chain jack as taught by Chambers, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the lift comprises chain jacks. The benefit being the predictable outcome of a lift system that does not stretch appreciably, which has long life, and which can be safely and mechanically locked to provide a fail-safe braking system (Chambers, para. (7)).
Regarding claim 40, modified Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 39, wherein the lift is actuatable to lower the lift platform or raise the lift platform (Tat, pg. 9, line 15: the jacking systems are configured to raise and lower the platform), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each chain jack includes:
a chain on a chainwheel and a cylinder jack coupled with the chain , wherein the chain is coupled with the lift platform and wherein the cylinder jack is actuable to release the chain to lower the lift platform or haul-in the chain to raise the lift platform.
However, Chambers teaches the chain jack specifically comprising a chain on a chainwheel (chain 40 on chainwheel 60, Fig. 2-3) and a cylinder jack coupled with the chain (cylinder 48 with piston 50 and ram 52, Figs. 2-3), wherein the chain is configured to be coupled with a lift platform (as is evidenced by the connection of the chain to platform 26, Figs. 2-3) and wherein the cylinder jack is actuable to release the chain to lower the lift platform or haul-in the chain to raise the lift platform (see at least ABSTRACT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system and lift disclosed by modified Tat with the chain on the chainwheel and the cylinder jack coupled with the chain, wherein the chain is configured to be coupled with a lift platform and wherein the cylinder jack is actuable to release the chain to lower the lift platform or haul-in the chain to raise the lift platform. as taught by Chambers, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that each chain jack comprises the chain on the chainwheel and the cylinder jack coupled with the chain, wherein the chain is coupled with the lift platform and wherein the cylinder jack is actuable to release the chain to lower the lift platform or haul-in the chain to raise the lift platform. The benefit being the predictable outcome of a lift system that does not stretch appreciably, which has long life, and which can be safely and mechanically locked to provide a fail-safe braking system (Chambers, para. (7)).
Regarding claim 41, modified Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 40, further comprising a hydraulic power unit on the floating dock (hydraulic motor, page 9, line 19), wherein the hydraulic power unit is configured to be coupled with the lift system and configured to actuate the jacking system (page 9, line 17-20), but does not specifically disclose wherein the hydraulic power unit is coupled with the chain jacks and configured to actuate the chain jacks.
However, Chambers teaches a hydraulic power unit (see the driving hydraulic cylinder or the jack cylinder hydraulic system, Fig. 7) that is coupled with the chain jacks and configured to actuate the chain jacks (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by modified Tat with the connection between a driving hydraulic power unit and the chain jacks taught by Chambers, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the hydraulic power unit is coupled with the chain jacks and configured to actuate the chain jacks. The benefit being providing a strong, reliable and long lasting raising and lowering system (Chambers, final paragraph).
Regarding claim 42, modified Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 40, but does not appear to specifically disclose one or more plates coupled between the chain and the lift platform.
However Chambers teaches the chain jack specifically with one or more plates coupled between the chain and a platform (base plate 44, upper plate 46, arm 64, ears 66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by modified Tat with the one or more plates coupled between the chain and a lift platform as taught by Chambers, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the one or more plates coupled between the chain and the lift platform. The benefit being the predictable outcome of the ability to control the engagement of the chains and/or the predictable outcome of securing the chain to the lifting platform (Chambers, Figs. 1-2)
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tat as applied to claim 47, and further in view of Grimsrud (US 12,698,757 B2).
Regarding claim 48, modified Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 47, wherein the marine equipment comprises equipment for offshore wind turbines (pg. 34, last lines), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the marine equipment comprises each of foundations, towers, nacelles, and blades for the offshore wind turbines.
However, Grimsrud teaches a method and facility for assembling a plurality of floating wind turbines including marine equipment, specifically foundations (11), towers (8a), nacelles (10), and blades (6) for the offshore wind turbines (12a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by modified Tat with the specific equipment pieces as taught by Grimsrud, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises each of the foundations, the towers, the nacelles, and the blades for the offshore wind turbines. The benefit being the predictable outcome of an arrangement that allows for a continuous serial production of completed floating wind turbines with reduced costs and build time (Grimsrud, Summary section).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tat as applied to claim 25, and further in view of Araki et al. (US 2018/0354588 A1), hereinafter Araki.
Regarding claim 49, Tat discloses the floating dock system of claim 25, further comprising a plurality of rails on the floating dock and the lift platform (guiding tracks 130), but does not appear to specifically disclose a plurality of bogies for transport of marine equipment along the rails on the floating dock and lift platform.
However, Araki teaches a ship that transports equipment along a plurality of rails specifically using a plurality of bogies (wheeled platform 501) to transport the equipment along the rails of platforms (see §[0026] and §[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the floating dock system disclosed by Tat with the plurality of bogies configured to transport equipment along rails of platforms as taught by Araki, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the plurality of bogies for transport of marine equipment along the rails on the floating dock and lift platform. The benefit being improving the flexibility of handling the marine equipment (Abstract, Araki).
Claims 50-51 and 53-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimsrud, and further in view of Tat.
Regarding claim 50, Grimsrud discloses a wind farm system, the system comprising:
a wind farm positioned at a first offshore site (the office notes the first site is the installation site or temporary storage area comprising the five assembled wind turbines, i.e., wind farm, installed or awaiting installation; see col. 4, line 15 and line 65),
the wind farm comprises a plurality of offshore wind turbines (12a-12e);
a floating dock moored at a second offshore site (col. 2, lns. 61-64; barge 2 moored),
wherein the second offshore site is in close proximity to the first offshore site (as is evidenced by the towing between sites; see col. 4, line 15 and line 65);
a plurality of lifts (jack-up legs 3);
a lift platform positioned adjacent the floating dock (installation vessel 1),
wherein the lifts are coupled with the lift platform and configured to raise and lower the lift platform relative to the floating dock (see last lines of col.2 and first lines of col. 3: “The installation vessel 1 is preferably of the jack-up type, having jack-up legs 3. The jack-up legs 3 are lowered to the sea floor to support the vessel 1 in a fixed position above the water surface”).
Grimsrud does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of lifts are specifically on the floating dock; and wherein the lift platform comprises an upper deck supported by a plurality of girders.
However, Tat teaches a system and a method for a reconfigurable mobile docking apparatus for transporting, removal, housing and transporting marine assets related to a wind farm (bottom of page 34) including a floating dock (apparatus 100, specifically hull portions 106 with supporting legs 104, e.g. u-shaped hull – pg. 9, line 27); a plurality of lifts specifically on the floating dock (the plurality of jacks arranged on top on each supporting leg 104 of the floating dock 100); and a lift platform comprising an upper deck supported by a plurality of girders (platform 102 comprising an area configured to receive the asset, i.e., the upper deck, see pg. 8, line 17; supported by the disclosed beams, see at least page 8, lines 29, 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the wind farm system disclosed by Grimsrud with the lift platform comprising an upper deck supported by a plurality of girders as taught by Tat; and the configuration wherein the plurality of lifts are specifically on the floating dock; with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the lift platform comprises an upper deck supported by a plurality of girders and the plurality of lifts arranged on the floating dock. The benefit being increased, well supported, and therefore usable deck space and overall platform space to work on.
Regarding claim 51, modified Grimsrud discloses the system of claim 50, further comprising one or more tug boats configured for transport of wind turbines or components thereof between the first and second offshore sites (the system comprises one or more tug boats as is evidenced by the towing of turbines from the installation vessel to the installation site or temporary storage area; see col. 4, line 15 and line 65).
Regarding claim 53, Grimsrud discloses a method of assembling a wind farm (Abstract; the office notes the method of assembling), the method comprising:
mooring a floating dock at a first offshore site (col. 2, lns. 61-64; barge 2 moored);
assembling an offshore wind turbine or components thereof on the floating dock (FIG. 1 shows an installation vessel and a barge to be used as a permanent installation during the assembly of wind turbines);
deploying the offshore wind turbine or components thereof into water at the first offshore site (the office notes the components of the wind turbine, e.g. assembled towers (8a), nacelle (10), blades (6) are deployed from the lift platform of the floating dock into the water or more specifically onto the floating foundations (11) in the water; see Fig. 13),
wherein the deploying comprises positioning the offshore wind turbine or components thereof on a lift platform of the floating dock (installation platform 1, Fig. 11); and
transporting the offshore wind turbine or components thereof from the first offshore site to a second offshore site and installing the offshore wind turbine or components thereof at the second offshore site to form a wind farm at the second offshore site (the office notes the offshore wind turbines 12a-12f are towed from the first site to a second site, i.e., is the installation site or temporary storage area comprising the five assembled wind turbines, forming a wind farm, that is installed or awaiting installation; see col. 4, line 15 and line 65).
Grimsrud does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the method includes maintaining and decommissioning the windfarm.
However, Tat teaches a method for a reconfigurable mobile docking apparatus for transporting, removal, housing and transporting marine assets related to a wind farm (bottom of page 34), specifically disclosing methods including maintaining (emergency repair, page 20, line 6; “repair and conversion”, page 24, line 8) and decommissioning (page 27, line 6); (removal, inspection, maintenance; page 27, line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of assembling a windfarm disclosed by Grimsrud with the steps of maintaining and decommissioning as taught by Tat, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the method includes assembling, maintaining and decommissioning the windfarm. The benefit being the predictable outcome of a method wherein the system may serve the windfarm from the beginning stage of assembly (installation), leading to its life enhancement and upgrading stage (maintaining) and subsequently to serve the ending of its life by removal and decommissioning (Tat, page 27, lines 1-6).
Grimsrud does not appear to disclose wherein the deployment of the wind turbine or components thereof specifically include lowering the lift platform (installation platform 1) into the water.
However, Tat teaches the method for a reconfigurable mobile docking apparatus for transporting, removal, housing and transporting marine assets related to a wind farm (bottom of page 34) wherein the reconfigurable mobile docking apparatus lifts or elevates to various heights to receive or offload asset (page 33), for example (the reconfigurable mobile docking apparatus is capable of submerging to a deeper depth for the purpose of receiving a floating asset (page 33); Specifically comprising a floating dock (apparatus 100, specifically hull portions 106 with supporting legs 104, e.g. u-shaped hull – pg. 9, line 27); a plurality of lifts (the plurality of jacks arranged on top on each supporting leg 104 of the floating dock 100); and a lift platform (platform 102 comprising an area configured to receive the asset, i.e., the upper deck, see pg. 8, line 17), specifically wherein the lifts are coupled with the lift platform and configured to raise and lower the lift platform relative to the floating dock (page 9, line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of assembling, maintaining, and decommissioning a wind farm disclosed by Grimsrud with the step of lowering a lifting platform into the water to receive or offload asset as taught by Tat, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the deployment of the wind turbine or components thereof specifically include lowering the lift platform (installation platform 1) into the water. The benefit being the predictable outcome of a wider range of functions so that a single apparatus can better be used for Mobilization, Installation, Removal and Decommissioning operations (Tat, pg. 34, letter h).
Regarding claim 54, modified Grimsrud disclose the method of claim 53, but does not appear to specifically disclose the steps of:
retrieving an offshore wind turbine or components thereof from the second offshore site; transporting the offshore wind turbine or components thereof from the second offshore site to the first offshore site; retrieving the offshore wind turbine or components thereof from the water at the first offshore site, wherein the retrieving comprises positioning the offshore wind turbine or components thereof on the lift platform and raising the lift platform out of the water; and repairing, maintaining, or decommissioning the offshore wind turbine or components thereof.
Tat teaches the method for a reconfigurable mobile docking apparatus for transporting, removal, housing and transporting marine assets related to a wind farm (bottom of page 34) wherein the reconfigurable mobile docking apparatus lifts or elevates to various heights to receive or offload asset (page 33), as was previously noted, for example (the reconfigurable mobile docking apparatus is capable of submerging to a deeper depth for the purpose of receiving a floating asset (page 33); Specifically comprising a floating dock (apparatus 100, specifically hull portions 106 with supporting legs 104, e.g. u-shaped hull – pg. 9, line 27); a plurality of lifts (the plurality of jacks arranged on top on each supporting leg 104 of the floating dock 100); and a lift platform (platform 102 comprising an area configured to receive the asset, i.e., the upper deck, see pg. 8, line 17), specifically wherein the lifts are coupled with the lift platform and configured to raise and lower the lift platform relative to the floating dock (page 9, line 15).
Additionally, Tat teaches retrieving assets of an offshore windfarm from an offshore site (transferring an asset onto the platform; page 20, line 25); transporting the asset(s) to a destination site (line 26); retrieving the assets from the destination site from the water, wherein the retrieving comprises positioning the offshore wind turbine or components thereof on the lift platform and raising the lift platform out of the water (as is evidenced by lines 29-31: the platform may be raised to a desired elevation and thereafter the asset(s) may be transferred onto or out from the platform); and repairing, maintaining, or decommissioning the offshore wind turbine or components thereof (as is evidenced by “emergency repair”, page 20, line 6; “repair and conversion”; page 24, line 8; “decommissioning”, page 27, line 6; “removal, inspection, maintenance”, page 27, line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the method of assembling, maintaining and decommissioning a windfarm disclosed by modified Grimsrud with the steps of retrieving assets of an offshore windfarm from an offshore site, transporting the windfarm asset(s) to a destination site, and raising a platform to a desired elevation so that thereafter the asset(s) may be transferred onto or out from the platform to repairing, maintaining, or decommissioning the offshore wind turbine or components thereof as taught by Tat , with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the method includes retrieving an offshore wind turbine or components thereof from the second offshore site; transporting the offshore wind turbine or components thereof from the second offshore site to the first offshore site; retrieving the offshore wind turbine or components thereof from the water at the first offshore site, wherein the retrieving comprises positioning the offshore wind turbine or components thereof on the lift platform and raising the lift platform out of the water; and repairing, maintaining, or decommissioning the offshore wind turbine or components thereof. The benefit being the predictable outcome of the method including step wherein the system may serve the offshore windfarm from the beginning stage of assembly (installation), leading to its life enhancement and upgrading stage (maintaining) and subsequently to serve the ending of its life by removal and decommissioning (Tat, page 27, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 55, modified Grimsrud discloses the method of claim 53, wherein the assembling comprises assembling a foundation of an offshore wind turbine (11, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 56, modified Grimsrud the method of claim 55, wherein the assembling comprises assembling a tower, nacelle, and blades onto (foundation assembled towers (8a), nacelle (10), blades (6)).
Regarding claim 57, modified Grimsrud the method of claim 53, wherein the transporting comprises towing using one or more tug boats (col. 3, line 57: preferably done by two tug boats (not shown)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leverette et al. (US 2006/0039758 A1) teaches a floating dock system for deploying and retrieving marine equipment (§§ [0001], [0004], [0005]), comprising:
a floating dock (buoyancy module 30);
a plurality of lifts on the floating dock (winches 42); but does not comprise a lift platform with an upper deck supported by a plurality of girders positioned adjacent the floating dock,
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