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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits of these claims.
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.
Claims 1-6, 15-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Number 2022/0348288 by Wang in view of US Patent Number 12,187,391 to Sonju.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a floatable, semi-submersible platform (buoyant structure 100) comprising:
a turbine-tower-hosting column having a top end and a keel end (support 10);
an irregular polygonal top node connected proximate to the turbine-tower-hosting column top end (upper deck 8);
a convex polygonal bottom node connected about the turbine-tower-hosting column proximate to the turbine-tower-hosting column keel end (lower deck 9);
three stabilizing columns, each having a top end and a keel end (columns 2);
three upper main beams, each upper main beam having a first end connected to the top node, and having a second end connected proximate to the top end of one of the three stabilizing columns (top connecting elements 5 in Figure 1A);
three lower main beams, each lower main beam having a first end connected to the bottom node, and a second end connected proximate to the keel end of one of the three stabilizing columns (lower connecting elements 5);
fixed ballast components located within the turbine-tower-hosting column and within the lower main beams (paragraph 85 discloses “concrete or barite may be used as the fixed ballast content”).
Wang does not disclose the bottom node being a regular convex polygon. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the upper and lower deck of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient to form a smooth connection with the connecting elements. 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.
Wang does not disclose hull trim compartments for containing ballast provided in the three stabilizing columns; and a hull trim system (HTS) for controlled transference of ballast between the hull trim compartments. However, this limitation is taught by Sonju. Sonju discloses a floating wind turbine platform 100, and column 14, lines 61-67 disclose “The floating wind turbine platform 100 may comprise an active ballast system. Said active ballast system can have autonomous or manual control. Said active ballast system can displace ballast to change the trim and draft of the floating wind turbine platform 100. The ballast may be static and trim and draft may be changed using temporary ballast pumps”. Wang suggests that “no active ballast system is required, but may be provided if required depending on the environmental conditions” (paragraph 87). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang using the teachings from Sonju in order to better stabilize the platform against the movement of the water in environments that require it.
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Wang discloses the turbine-tower-hosting column is a cylindrical turbine-tower-hosting column (see closeup of support 10 in Figure 7), the floatable, semi-submersible platform further comprising: a wind turbine tower connected to the cylindrical turbine-tower-hosting column; and, a wind turbine having a set of blades (see tower 1 in Figure 1A), wherein the wind turbine and set of blades are characterized by a rated operating rotor frequency (1P) and a blade passing frequency (these are standard ratings for turbine blades).
Wang does not disclose wherein, the wind turbine tower, when mounted onto the semi-submersible platform, is characterized by a natural frequency separated from the blade passing frequency at rated rotor speed by at least 10%. However, having disclosed a wind turbine with blades, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the rotor speed, 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).
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Wang discloses each lower main beam includes a flat-plate pontoon (pontoons 3).
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Wang discloses each stabilizing column is polygonal, the width of the upper main beam being less than the width of the face of the polygonal stabilizing column (see Figure 1A).
Wang does not disclose wherein each upper main beam second end includes a first section having a width of the upper main beam and a second section having a width of a face of the polygonal stabilizing column. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the connecting elements of whatever shape is desired to ensure a smooth transition between the connecting elements and the columns. 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.
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Wang and Sonju do not disclose the hull trim compartments provided in the stabilizing columns are biased toward the side of the stabilizing column closest to the turbine-tower-hosting column. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the active ballast system wherever desired within the column, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Wand does not disclose the fixed ballast components are provided at the keel end of the turbine-tower-hosting column and within each of the three lower main beams at a section of each of the lower main beams nearer the turbine-tower-hosting column than the stabilizing column. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the ballast wherever necessary within the platform to achieve the desired buoyancy, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 15 (dependent on claim 6), Wang discloses the fixed ballast components located within the turbine-tower-hosting column and within the lower main beams include at least one of: ballast compartments configured to be filled with water, or sections of rigid ballast. Paragraph 85 discloses water as well as concrete or barite being used as ballasts.
Regarding claim 16 (dependent on claim 4), Wang does not disclose the hull trim compartments provided in the stabilizing columns being biased toward the side of the stabilizing column closest to the turbine-tower-hosting column, includes each hull trim compartment being contained within a first half of a stabilizing column nearer to the turbine-tower-hosting column than a second half of the stabilizing column. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the ballast wherever desired within the column, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Number 2022/0348288 by Wang in view of US Patent Number 12,187,391 to Sonju, in further view of US Patent Application Number 2022/0063774 by Sauvage.
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 1), Wang and Sonju do not disclose for each adjacent pair of lower main beams, at least one planar gusset connecting the pair of lower main beams, the at least one planar gusset being connected to at least one of: an upper edge of a first lower main beam, an upper edge of the bottom node, and an upper edge of a second lower main beam; or a lower edge of the first lower main beam, a lower edge of the bottom node, and a lower edge of the second lower main beam. However, this limitation is taught by Sauvage. Sauvage discloses a semi-submersible platform for supporting a wind turbine, and paragraph 136 discloses “The truss structure 20 comprises beams 74 connected to the stabilizing columns through gussets and shear plates”, and Figure 10 shows the connections of the lower beams being connected at the lower edge of the main beams. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang and Sonju using the teachings from Sauvage in order to better reinforce the connections between the connecting elements and the columns.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Number 2022/0348288 by Wang in view of US Patent Number 12,187,391 to Sonju, in further view of US Patent Number 10,822,760 to Berenguer.
Regarding claim 13 (dependent on claim 1), Wang does not disclose the irregular polygonal top node has a regular convex hexagonal inner structure having, on each of three faces of the hexagonal inner structure, an isosceles trapezoidal extension, wherein each first end of an upper main beam connects to the irregular polygonal top node at a base of one of the isosceles trapezoidal extensions, and wherein the regular convex hexagonal inner structure includes, for each face of the hexagonal inner structure, a bulkhead extending radially from the turbine-tower-hosting column and connected perpendicular to the face. However, this limitation is taught by Berenguer. Berenguer discloses a support structure for wind turbines, and annotated Figure 7 below shows the claimed inner structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
403
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang using the teachings from Berenguer to use known ways to form and reinforce platforms to support wind turbines.
Regarding claim 17 (dependent on claim 16)¸Wang discloses the stabilizing columns have a cross-section that is a hexagon (see Figure 1a).
Berenguer further teaches the first half of the stabilizing column is defined by a bulkhead between opposing vertices of the hexagon; and each hull trim compartment is further defined by an upper stabilizing column bulkhead and a lower stabilizing column bulkhead. Figure 2 shows the interior of towers 1 having bulkhead structure between opposing vertices of the hexagon, and the closing slab 5 of the tower and the closed bottom of the base forms upper and lower bulkheads for tower 5.
Wang and Berenguer do not disclose the hull trim compartment is configured to receive ballast within a space within a stabilizing column that is: within the first half of the stabilizing column, below a lowest level of an upper main beam, and above a highest level of a lower main beam. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the ballast wherever necessary within the platform to achieve the desired buoyancy, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Number 2022/0348288 by Wang in view of US Patent Number 12,187,391 to Sonju, in further view of FR 2970938 A1 to Perol.
Regarding claim 14 (dependent on claim 1), Wang does not disclose the regular convex polygonal bottom node is a regular hexagon having: for each face of the hexagon, a first bulkhead extending radially from the turbine-tower-hosting column and connected perpendicularly to the face; for each intersection of adjacent faces, a second bulkhead extending radially from the turbine-tower-hosting column to the intersection; and a plurality of girder sections, each girder section extending perpendicularly inward from a face of the hexagon and extending perpendicularly between a first bulkhead and a second bulkhead. However, this limitation is taught by Perol. Perol discloses a support assembly for wind turbines, and Figure 7 shows the regular convex polygonal support of the platform having bulkheads extending radially from the center column both perpendicularly to the sides of the hexagon and to the vertices of the hexagon, and additional reinforcing girders extending perpendicularly between the bulkheads. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang using the teachings from Berenguer to use known ways to form and reinforce platforms to support wind turbines.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Number 2022/0348288 by Wang in view of US Patent Number 9,394,035 to Dagher and US Patent Number 12,187,391 to Sonju.
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses a floatable, semi-submersible platform (buoyant structure 100) comprising:
a cylindrical turbine-tower-hosting column having a top end and a keel end (support 10);
a top node having a hexagonal cross section and being connected proximate to the turbine-tower-hosting column top end (upper deck 8);
a bottom node having a hexagonal cross section and being connected about the turbine-tower-hosting column proximate to the turbine-tower-hosting column keel end (lower deck 9);
three stabilizing columns, each having a hexagonal cross section, a top end and a keel end (columns 2);
three upper main beams, each upper main beam having a first end connected to the top node, and having a second end connected proximate to the top end of one of the three stabilizing columns (top connecting elements 5 in Figure 1A);
three lower main beams, each lower main beam having a first end connected to the bottom node, and a second end connected proximate to the keel end of one of the three stabilizing columns (lower connecting elements 5);
fixed ballast components located within the turbine-tower-hosting column and within the lower main beams (paragraph 85 discloses “concrete or barite may be used as the fixed ballast content”).
Wang does not disclose a node-connecting column having a hexagonal cross section and connecting the top node to the bottom node such that the sides of the node-connecting column and co-planar with corresponding sides of the top node and the bottom node and the cylindrical turbine-tower-hosting column extends co-axially within the node-connecting column. However, this limitation is taught by Dagher. Dagher discloses a floating wind platform with a node-connecting column 522 between the top and the bottom sections 526 and forming coplanar sides, and Figure 21 shows the hollow inside for receiving a turbine hosting column. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang using the teachings from Dagher in order to better protect the support column from damage. Furthermore, since Wang discloses hexagonal top and bottom cross sections, the combination of Wang and Dagher would suggest making the center column 522 of the same hexagonal cross section.
Wang does not disclose hull trim compartments for containing ballast provided in the three stabilizing columns; and a hull trim system (HTS) for controlled transference of ballast between the hull trim compartments. However, this limitation is taught by Sonju. Sonju discloses a floating wind turbine platform 100, and column 14, lines 61-67 disclose “The floating wind turbine platform 100 may comprise an active ballast system. Said active ballast system can have autonomous or manual control. Said active ballast system can displace ballast to change the trim and draft of the floating wind turbine platform 100. The ballast may be static and trim and draft may be changed using temporary ballast pumps”. Wang suggests that “no active ballast system is required, but may be provided if required depending on the environmental conditions” (paragraph 87). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang using the teachings from Sonju in order to better stabilize the platform against the movement of the water in environments that require it.
Regarding claim 20, Wang discloses a floatable, semi-submersible platform (buoyant structure 100) comprising:
a cylindrical turbine-tower-hosting column having a top end and a keel end (support 10);
a top node having a hexagonal cross section and being connected proximate to the turbine-tower-hosting column top end (upper deck 8);
a bottom node having a hexagonal cross section and being connected about the turbine-tower-hosting column proximate to the turbine-tower-hosting column keel end (lower deck 9);
three stabilizing columns, each having a hexagonal cross section, a top end and a keel end (columns 2);
three upper main beams, each upper main beam having a first end connected to the top node, and having a second end connected proximate to the top end of one of the three stabilizing columns (top connecting elements 5 in Figure 1A);
three lower main beams, each lower main beam having a first end connected to the bottom node, and a second end connected proximate to the keel end of one of the three stabilizing columns (lower connecting elements 5);
fixed ballast components located within the turbine-tower-hosting column and within the lower main beams (paragraph 85 discloses “concrete or barite may be used as the fixed ballast content”).
Wang does not disclose a node-connecting column having a hexagonal cross section and connecting the top node to the bottom node such that the sides of the node-connecting column and co-planar with corresponding sides of the top node and the bottom node and the cylindrical turbine-tower-hosting column extends co-axially within the node-connecting column, an intermediate node connecting the turbine-tower-hosting column keel end to at leaset one of the node-connecting column or the bottom node. However, this limitation is taught by Dagher. Dagher discloses a floating wind platform with a node-connecting column 522 between the top and the bottom sections 526 and forming coplanar sides, and Figure 21 shows the hollow inside for receiving a turbine hosting column as well as 444 forming an intermediate node between the turbine-tower-hosting column keel end and the node-connecting bolumn. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang using the teachings from Dagher in order to better protect the support column from damage. Furthermore, since Wang discloses hexagonal top and bottom cross sections, the combination of Wang and Dagher would suggest making the center column 522 of the same hexagonal cross section.
Wang does not disclose hull trim compartments for containing ballast provided in the three stabilizing columns; and a hull trim system (HTS) for controlled transference of ballast between the hull trim compartments. However, this limitation is taught by Sonju. Sonju discloses a floating wind turbine platform 100, and column 14, lines 61-67 disclose “The floating wind turbine platform 100 may comprise an active ballast system. Said active ballast system can have autonomous or manual control. Said active ballast system can displace ballast to change the trim and draft of the floating wind turbine platform 100. The ballast may be static and trim and draft may be changed using temporary ballast pumps”. Wang suggests that “no active ballast system is required, but may be provided if required depending on the environmental conditions” (paragraph 87). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang using the teachings from Sonju in order to better stabilize the platform against the movement of the water in environments that require it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights