DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 16 January 2026 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 16 January 2026 stating that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered. New prior art rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2, --are attached to-- should be added after “columns” (for grammatical purposes).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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, 3-11, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achard et al. (WO 2013/175124 A1 - hereafter referred to as Achard; previously cited; see copy/translation filed 18 June 2025) in view of Langeard (US 11,053,924), and wherein Christiansen (US 2022/0299011; previously cited) and NPL reference Empire (internet print-out of https://www.empireengineering.co.uk/semi-submersible-spar-and-tlp-floating-wind-foundations/; previously cited) are cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 1
Achard discloses:
A wind turbine floating offshore platform system, comprising:
a wind turbine (i.e., VAWT 10);
an offshore floating platform supporting the wind turbine, the offshore floating platform comprising a vertical column (14 – see Figures 1 and 3); and
a drivetrain (i.e., the assembly of elements 94, 96, 98, 89, and 92 - Figure 3) integrated into the column of the offshore floating platform, the drive train having a center of gravity (inherent);
wherein a portion of the drivetrain is located below a mean water line (18 - Figure 3) of the wind turbine offshore floating platform system.
Achard does not disclose:
the vertical column is one of three or more vertical columns,
the one of the three or more columns that the drivetrain is integrated has a larger diameter than other columns of the three or more columns; and
Langeard discloses:
a floating platform system for a wind turbine comprising three columns (24 & 26), wherein the wind turbine is mounted on a column (24) having a larger volume/size than the other columns; the larger volume/size promotes stability (see col.8:ll.56-61).
Empire teaches that the triangular asymmetric floating platform type disclosed by Langeard is the most popular type and provides the advantage of allowing easier transportation and installation than a spar type (i.e., a floating platform having a single column).
Christiansen teaches that it is known to include electronics (25 and/or 29) in one (15b) of three columns of a floating platform system for a wind turbine comprising three columns.
Achard further discloses (in the copy filed 18 June 2025, see e.g. page 47, 6th paragraph, page 51, last few paragraphs) that the vertical distribution of weights of the components contributes to vertical locations of center of gravity and/or geometric center and/or thrust relative to the water line 18 that promote stability.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system / platform of Achard to include three of the columns (i.e., by addition of two more columns, at least), as disclosed by Langeard, for the purpose of promoting ease of transportation and installation (as evidenced by Empire), and to make the column on which the wind turbine is mounted to have the largest volume size (i.e., by increasing its diameter), as further disclosed by Langeard, for the purpose of promoting stability.
Furthermore, in performing this modification, it would have been further obvious to preserve the location of the drivetrain as in the column on which the wind turbine is mounted, as similarly evidenced by Christiansen, for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary parts (e.g., transmission elements), and to preserve (i.e., by selection of the weights and/or sizes and/or volumes of components) the drivetrain as being below the mean water line of the wind turbine offshore floating platform system for the purpose of preserving the associated stability provided by such in Achard.
In reference to claim 3
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the drivetrain (Achard - 94, 96, 98, 89, & 92) includes a lower bearing (92 or 94 - Achard Figure 3)(note: there is no structure imbued by the term lower).
In reference to claim 4
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The system of claim 3, wherein the lower bearing (Achard - 94) is located below (see Achard Figure 3) the mean water line (Achard - 18).
In reference to claim 5
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The system of claim 3, wherein the lower bearing (Achard - 92)(note: there is no structure imbued by the term lower) is located above (see Achard Figure 3) the mean water line (Achard - 18).
In reference to claim 6
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The system of claim 1.
Langeard further discloses that the floating platform system includes an upper frame (i.e., the frame formed by members 40A - see Figure 2) and lower pontoon sections (40B - see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system / platform of Achard in view of Langeard to include an upper frame and lower pontoon sections, as disclosed by Langeard, for the purpose of promoting structural stability/rigidity.
Achard in view of Langeard therefore also addresses:
the three or more vertical columns sections of an upper frame (Langeard - 40A)(note: Applicant’s disclosure at par. [0022] indicates that upper frame is formed by “three frame portions connected to the columns 16”) and lower pontoon sections (Langeard - 40B).
In reference to claim 7
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the center of gravity (see Achard Figure 3) of the drivetrain (Achard - 94, 96, 98, 89, & 92) is located within (see Achard Figure 3) the one (Achard - 14) of the three or more columns (addressed by Achard in view of Lachard).
In reference to claim 8
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the wind turbine (Achard - 10) is a vertical axis wind turbine.
In reference to claim 9
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the drivetrain (Achard - 94, 96, 98, 89, & 92) further comprises a driveshaft (Achard - 89), an upper bearing (Achard - 92), a generator (Achard - 96 & 98) and a lower bearing (Achard - 94).
In reference to claim 10
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the drivetrain (Achard - 65) is located below (see Achard Figure 3) the mean water line (Achard - 18).
In reference to claim 11
Achard in view of Langeard, as combined in the rejection of claim 6 above, addresses:
A floating offshore platform for supporting a wind turbine, comprising:
an upper frame (Langeard - 40A)(note: Applicant’s disclosure at par. [0022] indicates that upper frame is formed by “three frame portions connected to the columns 16”) and lower pontoon sections (Langeard - 40B);
three or more vertical columns (addressed by Achard in view of Lachard) connecting the upper frame and lower pontoon sections; and
a drivetrain (Achard - 94, 96, 98, 89, & 92) having a center of gravity (inherent), the drivetrain integrated into one (Achard - 14) of the three or more columns between the upper frame and the lower pontoon sections (note: at least part of Achard shaft 89 would be between Langeard members 40A,40B in the proposed combination - see the extent of Achard shaft 89 in Achard Figure 3).
In reference to claim 17
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The platform of claim 11, wherein the center of gravity (see Achard Figure 3) of the drivetrain (Achard - 94, 96, 98, 89, & 92) is located within (see Achard Figure 3) the one (Achard - 14) of the three or more columns (addressed by Achard in view of Lachard).
In reference to claim 19
Achard in view of Langeard addresses:
The platform of claim 11, wherein the drivetrain (Achard - 94, 96, 98, 89, & 92) comprises a driveshaft (Achard - 89), an upper bearing (Achard - 92), a generator (Achard - 96 & 98) and a lower bearing (Achard - 94).
Examiner’s Comment / Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711