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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 should properly depend from claim 15 instead of claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13, 15 and 16 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.
Claims 1 and 15 include the functional limitation of rotating at least one of the buoyant columns about a longitudinal axis of the structure, but fails to disclose any guiding structure to facilitate such rotation. The scope of the claim is unclear because any floating platform with periphery columns positioned about a central structure is capable of rotating about a longitudinal axis of the structure during assembly/disassembly or preparing for deployment if cross bracing is removed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US 10773777. US 10773777 discloses a floating power generation platform (see Fig. 7) capable of transitioning from a transport configuration to a deployed configuration at the offshore deployment location comprising: a water plane platform including a plurality of buoyant columns (#5 floating elements, three floating elements are shown in figures however additional floating modules are contemplated, see Column 4, lines 9-16); and at least one central structure #22 extending above the water plane platform and configured to support at least one power generation system; wherein at least one buoyant column #5 of the plurality of buoyant columns #5 is rotatable, relative to at least another one buoyant column #5 of the plurality of buoyant columns #5, between an unrotated position and a rotated position to move the floating power generation platform between a transportation configuration and a deployed configuration (see Figures 2a-2f). The buoyant columns are also connected to the at least one central structure with a plurality of struts
The examiner believes the rotation of the buoyant columns #5 can be about a longitudinal axis of the at least one central structure #22, however the figures show an articulation point #15 (See Fig. 2f) which is located on the outer circumference of the central structure #22. Regardless, the buoyant columns #5 are capable of being rotated about the longitudinal axis of the central structure #22 anytime during assembly/disassembly prior to being connected to the articulation point #15.
The examiner notes that the applicant’s claim 1 recites the function of “at least one buoyant column is rotatable about a longitudinal axis of the at least one central tower”, but the claim lacks any specific structure which enabling the rotation to be completed.
Regarding claim 3: US 10773777 discloses cross braces #11 for connecting two or more of the plurality of columns to each other.
Regarding claim 4-6: Fig 9 shows the floating column #5 having a central column center and an outer column portion. The floating column 5 is also disclosed as being rigid (manufactured from concrete and/or metals). Each of the column center and outer portions are capable of selectively ballasting (adjustable gates #26’) to adjust buoyancy.
Regarding claim 10: US 10773777 discloses a central tower having a hollow core (telescoping sections 22, 22’, 22”) and a deployable rigid spar 22.
Claims 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by STIESDAL WO 2017157399. Stiesdal discloses a floating power generation platform comprising: a water plane platform [figs 1 & 7b] including a plurality of buoyant columns 16; at least one tower 6 extending above the water plane platform and configured to support at least one power generation system 2, the at least one tower having a center core capable of hosting a stowed member; and a deployable spar 28 movable between a stowed position (transport configuration), in which the deployable spar is stowed within the center core of the tower, and a deployed position, in which the deployable spar is extended below the water plane platform and locked in position. See fig. 7b; pg. 16, line 30 -page 17, line 35. Stiesdal also discloses the step of operating at least one power generation system supported on the floating power generation platform, and disabling the at least one power generation system for a predetermined amount of time.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10773777. While 10773777 does not explicitly disclose inflatable and mixed buoyancy materials, the disclosure does indicate the floating columns #5 can be manufactured using different materials known in the art and that a mixed construction of materials such as concrete and metal (being mixed buoyancy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floating columns of 10773777 by incorporating inflatable components or mixed buoyancy components to enable the buoyancy to be adjusted to compensate for adjustable loading or sea states.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10773777 in view of Stiesdal, WO 2017157399. US 10773777 disclose the invention set forth above, and further discloss the telescopic spar 22 is extended below the water plane platform and each of the plurality of buoyant columns, However, US 10773777 does not disclose the spar is stowed within a center core of the tower, but rather that the tower is in the center core of the spar. Stiesdal discloses the arrangement of a spar stowed within the center core of the tower. The examiner considers the locking arrangement to be inherent to retain the structure in the desired position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the arrangement of the telescopic sections of the tower and spar of US 10773777 as discloses by Stiesdal. Doing so uses known arrangements of telescoping section to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D WIEST whose telephone number is (571)270-5974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 - 3:00.
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.
/ANTHONY D WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights