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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05 January 2026 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 21, “an open top end” should be changed to “the open top end”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 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.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear whether “a power generator” as recited in line 1 refers to the power generator recited in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation. For purposes of examination, the power generators recited in claims 1 and 2 have been interpreted as referring to the same structural element.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear whether “a power generator” as recited in line 1 refers to the power generator recited in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation. For purposes of examination, the power generators recited in claims 1 and 3 have been interpreted as referring to the same structural element.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “installing the power generator in the inner sleeve” is confusing because claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites “installing at least a portion of a power generator in the inner sleeve”. It is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation recited in claim 7 requires the entire power generator or only a portion (or the portion) of the power generator to be installed in the inner sleeve. For purposes of examination, “installing the power generator in the inner sleeve” has been interpreted as “installing at least the portion of a power generator in the inner sleeve” as best understood by Examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1 - 3, 9, 10, 13 - 16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (WO 2015135471) in view of Maier (US 2014/0014388).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses a method comprising: inserting an open bottom end of an outer monopile (steel cylinder 101) into an earthen substrate, the inserted outer monopile including an open top end above the earthen substrate; removing portions of the earthen substrate within the outer monopile through the open top end above the earthen substrate (seabed 2) (pages 3 and 6 of the attached translation of the description); inserting an inner sleeve (hollow tubular pier section 1A) into the outer monopile through the open top end of the outer monopile, the inner sleeve including a cavity formed by a closed bottom end and an open top end (abstract; Figs. 1 - 6; pages 2 - 3 and 6 - 8 of the attached translation of the description). Wong fails to disclose installing at least a portion of a power generator in the inner sleeve, wherein subsequent to the inner sleeve being inserted into the outer monopile and subsequent to at least the portion of the power generator being installed in the inner sleeve, the portion of the power generator is below a height of the earthen substrate outside of the outer monopile. Maier teaches installing at least a portion of a power generator (power and operating module 29) in a monopile (steel pipe 27), wherein subsequent to at least the portion of the power generator (29) being installed in the monopile (27), the portion of the power generator is below a height of the earthen substrate (ocean floor 49) outside of the monopile (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0037, 0039, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the inner sleeve as disclosed by Wong with the power generator as taught by Maier to provide a temporary energy storage facility within an offshore power generating assembly. Maier fails to teach the power generator being installed subsequent to installing the inner sleeve within the outer monopile. The order in which the power generator and the inner sleeve are installed lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Wong discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except installing a power generator in the inner sleeve prior to installing the inner sleeve within the outer monopile. Maier teaches installing a power generator (29) in the interior of a monopile (27) (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0037, 0039, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the inner sleeve as disclosed by Wong with the power generator as taught by Maier to provide a temporary energy storage facility within an offshore power generating assembly. Maier fails to teach the power generator being installed prior to installing the inner sleeve within the outer monopile. The order in which the power generator and the inner sleeve are installed lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 3, Wong discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except installing a power generator in the inner sleeve subsequent to installing the inner sleeve within the outer monopile. Maier teaches installing a power generator (29) in the interior of a monopile (27) (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0037, 0039, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the inner sleeve as disclosed above with the power generator as taught by Maier to provide a temporary energy storage facility within an offshore power generating assembly. Maier fails to teach the power generator being installed subsequent to installing the inner sleeve within the outer monopile. The order in which the power generator and the inner sleeve are installed lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 9, Wong further discloses subsequent to removing portions of the earthen substrate within the outer monopile (101), pouring concrete (107) on top of a remaining portion of the earthen substrate within the outer monopile to form a concrete pad within the outer monopile (Fig. page 8).
Regarding claim 10, Wong further discloses the inner sleeve (1A) is coupled to the concrete pad (107) (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Wong further discloses the cavity of the inner sleeve (1A) is watertight (waterproof layer, not shown, see page 8) and inserting the inner sleeve into the outer monopile (101) comprises lowering the bottom end of the inner sleeve into water from a body of water inside the outer monopile (Figs. 3, 5, and 6; page 8).
Regarding claim 14, Wong further discloses inserting the inner sleeve (hollow tubular pier segment 1A) into the outer monopile (101) comprises ballasting (by watering) the inner sleeve (page 3).
Regarding claim 15, Wong further discloses inserting grouting material (concrete 107) between the inner sleeve (1A) and the outer monopile (101) (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Wong further discloses installing concrete (107) at the bottom end of the monopile (101) in the earthen substrate (4, 5) (Figs. 6 and 7). Although Wong fails to explicitly teach the concrete is installed to provide radiation shielding, the concrete as disclosed by Wong is identical to the concrete as disclosed in the present application and, therefore, the concrete as taught by Wong provides radiation shielding inasmuch as the concrete of the present application does.
Regarding claim 20, Wong discloses a method comprising: preparing to insert an inner sleeve (1A) into an outer monopile (101), the outer monopile having an open bottom end installed in an earthen substrate (2, 4, 5), the outer monopile including an open top end above the earthen substrate and having a cavity inside in which portions of the earthen substrate were removed; lowering a bottom end of the inner sleeve inside the outer monopile through the open top end of the outer monopile, the inner sleeve including a cavity formed by a closed bottom end and an open top end (abstract; Figs. 1 - 6; pages 2 - 3 and 6 - 8 of the attached translation of the description). Wong fails to disclose installing at least a portion of a power generator in the inner sleeve, wherein subsequent to the inner sleeve being inserted into the outer monopile and subsequent to at least the portion of the power generator being installed in the inner sleeve, the portion of the power generator is below a height of the earthen substrate outside of the outer monopile. Maier teaches installing at least a portion of a power generator (power and operating module 29) in a monopile (steel pipe 27), wherein subsequent to at least the portion of the power generator (29) being installed in the monopile (27), the portion of the power generator is below a height of the earthen substrate (ocean floor 49) outside of the monopile (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0037, 0039, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the inner sleeve as disclosed by Wong with the power generator as taught by Maier to provide a temporary energy storage facility within an offshore power generating assembly. Maier fails to teach the power generator being installed subsequent to installing the inner sleeve within the outer monopile. The order in which the power generator and the inner sleeve are installed lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 21, Wong further discloses the earthen substrate (2) is at a bottom of a body of water and the inserted outer pile (101) includes an open top end above the body of water (Fig. 5).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Maier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boontjes et al. (WO 2019/194676).
Regarding claim 4, Wong in view of Wong discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except prior to insertion of the inner sleeve into the outer monopile, the inner sleeve includes or houses a spent fuel storage container at the closed bottom end, the spent fuel storage container configured to hold spent fuel from the power generator. Boontjes teaches the monopile (121) includes a spent fuel storage container (pressure vessel 122 is capable of storing spent fuel) at the closed bottom end, the spent fuel storage container configured to hold spent fuel from the power generator (Figs. 1A, 1B, and 5; page 29, line 17 - page 30, line 15). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the inner sleeve as disclosed above with the spent fuel storage container as taught by Boontjes to provide a temporary storage facility within an offshore power generating assembly. Boontjes fails to teach the inner sleeve includes a spent fuel storage container prior to the insertion of the inner sleeve into the outer monopile. The order in which the inner sleeve includes a spent fuel storage container and the insertion of the inner sleeve into the outer monopile lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 5, Wong in view of Maier discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the spent fuel storage container is arranged along a bottom edge of the cavity. Boontjes teaches the spent fuel storage container is arranged along a bottom edge of the cavity (bottom edge defined by the fluid barrier 15) (Fig. 5; page 30, lines 31 - 32). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the inner sleeve as disclosed above with the spent fuel storage container as taught by Boontjes to provide a temporary storage facility within an offshore power generating assembly.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Maier as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larrion (US 2015/0131769).
Regarding claim 7, Wong further discloses inserting water into cavity of the inner sleeve (water is stored in the cavity in the inner sleeve; page 5) (pages 2 and 5). Wong fails to disclose installing the power generator in the inner sleeve; and subsequent to installing the power generator in the inner sleeve, inserting borated water into the cavity. Maier teaches installing at least a portion of a power generator (power and operating module 29) in a monopile (steel pipe 27), wherein subsequent to at least the portion of the power generator (29) being installed in the monopile (27), the portion of the power generator is below a height of the earthen substrate (ocean floor 49) outside of the monopile (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0037, 0039, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the inner sleeve as disclosed by Wong with the power generator as taught by Maier to provide a temporary energy storage facility within an offshore power generating assembly. Wong in view of Maier fails to disclose subsequent to installing the power generator in the inner sleeve, the water is borated water. Larrion teaches storing borated water in a subsea (sea 16) storage container (storage tank 8) (paragraphs 0017, 0029, and 0080) to provide a coolant for a power plant. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the borated water as taught by Larrion for the water as disclosed by Wong as a design consideration within the skill of the art to provide a coolant for material(s) stored in the cavity. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007). Larrion fails to teach the borated water is installed subsequent to installing the power generator. The order in which the power generator and the inner sleeve are installed lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 8, Wong in view of Maier and Larrion discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a water level of the borated water in the inner sleeve is below a top surface of a body of water outside of the outer monopile. Examiner takes the position that the volume of water and the associated water level of borated water stored in the inner sleeve lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Maier as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Maher et al. (US 2023/0160369). Wong in view of Maier discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except prior to pouring the concrete, inserting an open bottom end of a micropile into the remaining portion of the earthen substrate, the inserted micropile including an open top end above the remaining portion of the earthen substrate within the outer monopile. Maher teaches inserting an open bottom end of a micropile (18) into the remaining portion of the earthen substrate, the inserted micropile including an open top end above the remaining portion of the earthen substrate within the outer monopile (16) (Fig. 3A; paragraphs 0067, 0081, and 0093). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the micropile as taught by Maher to provide additional stability for the monopile. Although Maher fails to teach the micropile is inserted into the earthen substrate prior to pouring the concrete, the order in which the steps of inserting the micropile into the earthen substrate and pouring concrete are performed lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 17, and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 5, 7 - 11, 13 - 16, and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 05 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wong does not teach or suggest installing a portion of a power generator in a hollow pier and that since Wong teaches the hollow pier provides buoyancy for the platform, modifying Wong to include a portion of a power generator would render the hollow pier of Wong unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Examiner replies that Wong teaches the hollow pier can be used for storage purposes (see page 2) and it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the inner sleeve as disclosed by Wong with the power generator as taught by Maier to provide a temporary energy storage facility within an offshore power generating assembly..
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
1/26/2026