isNotice 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14” has been used to designate both “nodes” and “concrete core”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be no period after “the lower bed of the base plate” and “the upper closing slab of the base plate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Caruso et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0331358).
As per claim 1, Caruso teaches a semi-submersible platform for supporting a wind turbine, the semi-submersible platform comprising:
-a mixed structure with two portions:
-a first concrete caisson-type structure (Caruso: 1; para. 119), which serves as hydrodynamic stability and flotation of the semi-submersible platform, said first concrete caisson-type structure consisting of:
-a base plate (2), with a triangular-or quadrangular-shaped ground plan and straight parallelepiped shape (figure 1), formed from a lower bed, with vertical perimeter walls (23, 24) and inner partition walls (27), and closed by an upper closing slab (25), forming a hollow and closed body (figure 5), entirely of reinforced concrete (para. 115); and
-cylindrical and/or frustoconical bodies (8), with a vertical axis (3, 4, 5), hollow, made of reinforced concrete, bases of which are embedded in the base plate in areas close to base plate vertices (figure 1), wherein said cylindrical and/or frustoconical bodies are closed at a top by means of circular covers (12); and
-a second structure consisting of a transition piece as an element that distributes service loads of the wind turbine to the concrete caisson-type structure, consisting of an all-steel piece, which connects the base plate to a lower end of the tower of the wind turbine at connection points located on each side of the base plate (figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
404
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
404
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2, the platform of claim 1 is as described. Caruso further teaches wherein a configuration of the base plate of the first concrete caisson-type structure has a ground plan according to an equilateral triangle with rounded edges (Caruso: para. 60; triangular layout with all vertices connected to the intermediate point 6).
As per claim 3, the platform of claim 1 is as described. Caruso further teaches wherein the base plate of the first concrete caisson-type structure has a concentric inner recess with the same configuration as the base plate, which serves to lighten said base plate and serves to optimize the hydrodynamic operation of the semi-submersible platform as a whole, improving damping of the semi-submersible platform against a heave motion (Caruso: para. 130; The flat base permit a significant increase in the damping.).
As per claim 4, the platform of claim 1 is as described. Caruso further teaches wherein the connection points between the metal transition piece and the first concrete caisson-type structure comprise a ring- or crown-shaped piece with a polygonal ground plan in a lower portion of the transition piece, which connects to a concrete core formed in the base plate by means of horizontal and vertical post-tensioned bars (Caruso: figure 7; para. 67; para. 64; para. 73; Four vertical bodies with a polygonal cross-section connected to each other.).
As per claim 5, the platform of claim 1 is as described. Caruso further teaches wherein the connection points between the metal transition piece and the first concrete caisson-type structure are located in the center of each side of the base plate (Caruso: figure 7).
As per claim 6, the platform of claim 1 is as described. Caruso further teaches wherein the connection points between the metal transition piece and the first concrete caisson-type structure are two on each side of the base plate (Caruso: figure 7).
As per claim 7, the platform of claim 4 is as described. Caruso further teaches wherein, depending on the loads transmitted by the wind turbine, the connection nodes between the metal transition piece and the first concrete caisson-type structure are housed in the base plate or at a higher elevation, above the upper closing slab of said base plate, in which case, the polygonal prism formed by the concrete walls extends above the base plate (Caruso: figure 6).
As per claim 8, the platform of claim 1 is as described. Caruso further teaches
PNG
media_image4.png
387
582
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein inside the base plate and/or inside the cylindrical bodies there is a water ballast and a set of pumps and pipes that the water ballast to be transferred from one cylinder to the others to stabilize the semi-submersible platform against the heeling that may occur during the service phase due to the operation of the wind turbine and the loads of waves, wind and currents (Caruso: para. 135-136).
As per claim 9, the platform of claim 1 is as described. Caruso further teaches wherein a constituent material of the first concrete caisson-type structure: base plate and of the cylindrical and/or frustoconical bodies is reinforced, prestressed and post-tensioned concrete (Caruso: para. 141), wherein post-tensioning elements are distributed and located in the following areas:
-the lower bed of the base plate.
-the upper closing slab of the base plate.
-at the connection nodes for connecting the transition piece to the first concrete caisson-type structure (Caruso: para. 73; para. 168; The completion of the platform with the post tensioning cables must be tensioned.).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0331358) in view of Dagher et al. (U.S. Patent 9,518,564).
As per claim 10, the platform of claim 1 is as described. Caruso does not explicitly teach the following, however, Dagher teaches wherein the first concrete caisson-type structure is made of reinforced concrete with fibers and/or resin-coated or glass fiber reinforced polyester (GRP) bars (Dagher: col. 4, 65-67).
The sole difference between Caruso and the claimed subject matter is that Caruso does not disclose specific type of reinforced concrete. Dagher shows that reinforced concrete with fibers. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the type of reinforced concrete of Dagher for the Caruso’s teaching of reinforced concrete. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another produces a predictable result rendering the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2023/0211857 – Teaches a wind turbine floater with a triangle shape.
Cobian – U.S. Publication No. 2022/0162825 – Teaches an offshore maritime structure with polygonal base with columns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights