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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the subject matter (as best understood by Examiner) appears to be patentably distinct from the prior art, the claims remain deficient under §112 for the reasons detailed below. Applicant’s arguments do not appear to be pertinent to the issues discussed below and, thus, Applicant’s arguments will not be further addressed at this time.
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 1-3, 5-8, and 10 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 1, Applicant has amended the claim to incorporate subject matter previously found in claims 4 and 9, each of which is now cancelled. Applicant has further included new limitations pertaining to generation of “a support effect by the connecting device and another wind-powered vessel to offset part of tilting force when the wind power generation device tilts.” Applicant’s amendments raise new issues of definiteness and clarity requiring clarification.
In lines 22-24 of the claim as amended, Applicant recites “wherein the wind turbine is electrically connected to…the wind power generation device, the wind power generation device is configured to supply electric energy to the wind turbine” (emphasis by Examiner). The wind turbine is an element of the wind power generation device (lines 16 and 18); as a result, Applicant effectively recites the wind power generation device being electrically connected to the wind power generation device. It is unclear what purpose this would serve, or whether this is actually the intended meaning of the limitation.
This lack of clarity is further compounded by recitation of “the wind power generation device is configured to supply electric energy to the wind turbine….” As best understood by Examiner, it is the wind turbine that generates the power, and thus it is wholly unclear why the generated power would be delivered to the power generator. It would seem that the limitation should instead recite the subject matter in a different manner, such as “wherein the wind turbine is electrically connected to the control device; wherein the wind power generation device is configured to supply electric energy via the wind turbine….”
Applicant also recites “a first vessel and a second vessel, wherein both the first vessel and the second vessel serve as the wind-powered vessel” (emphasis by Examiner). It is unclear, based on Applicant’s Remarks in the After-Final Response (“the AF,” received 07/27/2026) in view of the originally filed disclosure, whether Applicant is attempted to claim a first wind-powered vessel and a second-wind powered vessel which are connected to each other, or if Applicant is instead attempting to recite a wind-powered vessel comprising two vessels and a shared cargo-carrying platform. The Specification as filed, at paragraph [0041], appears to conflate “the wind powered vessel 11” and “a cargo-carrying platform.” Paragraph [0069-71] state that “the first vessel 11a and the second vessel 11b are used as the cargo-carrying platform” (emphasis by Examiner). Figure 6, as originally filed, appears to shown two distinct vessels, each constituting a separate wind-powered vessel, the two wind-powered vessels being joined by connecting device 18. Thus, it is evident that the instant claim language may be plausibly constructed in two differing manners.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008).
Applicant also recites “wherein the axial direction corresponding to rotation of the fan blade is set at a preset angle with respect to a bow direction of the wind-powered vessel” (emphasis by Examiner). It is unclear whether these limitations are meant to refer back to the already recited instances of “a preset angle” and “a bow direction” in line 20, or if Applicant is reciting a different preset angle and a different bow direction.
Applicant also recites “to generate a support effect by the connecting device and another wind-powered vessel to offset part of tilting force when the wind power generation device tilts” (emphasis by Examiner). It is entirely unclear what other “wind-powered vessel” Applicant is contemplating in this limitation. The disclosure as filed does not appear to contemplate plural “wind-powered vessels” unless the disclosure as filed was meant to disclose the first vessel and the second vessel comprising a first wind-powered vessel and a second wind-powered vessel rather than the first and second vessel serving as the wind-powered vessel. Indeed, the only support for plural wind-powered vessels is found in original FIG 6, showing the first vessel and the second vessel, both vessels comprising individual and discrete wind-powered vessels. As it is unclear whether Applicant has simply failed to clearly recite the subject matter, or whether Applicant is instead attempting to recite subject matter which may not be supported by the disclosure as filed, the limitation renders the claim indefinite.
It is also unclear how the fan blade being set at a predetermined angle with respect to a bow direction would generate a support effect using another vessel. While FIG 6 suggests that a second vessel (e.g., 11b) may provide a force that counters a rotation of a first vessel (e.g., 11a) through buoyancy or gravity, depending upon the direction of rotation, such a force is wholly independent from the angle of the axial direction unless “the axial direction” is meant to refer to a wind turbine which is mounted on the second vessel. This is not, however, what Applicant has claimed and, thus, the limitations remain indefinite.
Finally, Applicant also recites “offset part of tilting force [sic] when the wind power generation device tilts.” It is unclear whether this is meant to recite the wind power generation device or the wind-powered vessel. There does not appear to be any mechanism which would allow the wind power generation device to rotate or tilt independently from the wind-powered vessel on which it is mounted. Thus, it would seem that the claim should instead recite “to offset part of a tilting force when the wind-powered vessel tilts,” or similar limitations depending upon how the above deficiencies are resolved.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10 depend from claim 1, fail to cure its deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons. Appropriate clarifications and/or corrections is required.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant recites “transmitting remaining electric energy of the wind power generation device” in lines 9-10 of the claim as originally filed. Applicant does not clearly and positively recite “a remaining electric energy” and, furthermore, does not clearly recite how “a remaining electric energy” is determined. As best understood by Examiner, “a remaining electric energy” is intended to be a difference between the amount of power generated and the amount of power consumed (i.e., “an excess electric energy”). Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, fails to cure its deficiencies, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant recites “deploying electric energy of the energy storage device” in line 7 of the claim as originally filed. Applicant does not clearly and positively recite “an electric energy of the energy storage device” and, furthermore, does not clearly indicate where this “electric energy” is originated. An electric storage device does not inherently include electric energy; instead, the electric energy must come from another source (e.g., the output of a power generator, a chemical reaction, etc.). As Applicant does not reference “the remaining electric energy” or previously establish “an electric energy of the energy storage device,” the claim is indefinite. Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant recites “one end of the mooring cable being connected to the vessel” in line 4 of the claim as originally filed. It is unclear which of the three vessels recited by claim 1 is being referenced by the limitation. As amended, claim 1 now includes “a wind-powered vessel,” “a first vessel,” and “a second vessel.” As best understood by Examiner, at least one mooring cable is provided for each of the first and the second vessels. Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant recites “a mooring cable of the first vessel between the first vessel and the second vessel” and “a mooring cable of the second vessel between the first vessel and the second vessel” (emphasis by Examiner). Applicant does not clearly indicate whether “between the” vessels is meant to refer to an existing mooring cable, or if the limitation is meant to be a further limitation “a mooring cable of” the first/second vessel. As best understood by Examiner, the limitation is meant to recite “a mooring cable of the first vessel, which is positioned between the first vessel and the second vessel” and similar for “a mooring cable of the second vessel….” Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
Examiner’s Proposed Claim Amendments
Examiner attempted to contact Applicant on 09/10/2026 and 09/15/2026 to propose the following amendments. Despite leaving a voicemail on both attempts, Applicant did not return Examiner’s call. Below are a set of proposed amendments to the claims that would address the deficiencies identified above.
The proposed amendments to claim 1 would overcome the rejections detailed above. The proposed amendments to the dependent claims would align language of each dependent claim with the proposed changes to language in claim 1. Claims which are not included below would remain unchanged relative to the claims filed on 08/28/2026.
Claim 1. (Proposed Examiner Amendment) A supercomputing center system, comprising:
a wind-powered vessel comprising a first vessel and a second vessel, wherein the first vessel and the second vessel each comprise:
a hull,
a damping device connected to the hull, the damping device configured to maintain stability of the hull,
at least one supercomputing device arranged on the hull and configured to perform operations,
a control device arranged on the hull and communicatively connected with damping device and the at least one supercomputing device,
a wind power generation device comprising a tower arranged on the hull, a wind turbine arranged on a top portion of the tower, and at least one fan blade rotationally connected to the wind turbine,
wherein the at least one fan blade rotates around a first axis having an axial direction, the axial direction having a preset angle relative to a bow direction of the wind-powered vessel,
wherein the wind power generation device is configured to supply electric energy to the damping device, the at least one supercomputing device, and the control device,
wherein the control device is configured to generate wind turbine parameter information and damping angle information according to real-time sea state information of a sea area where the wind-powered vessel is located, to control the wind power generation device to generate an electric energy, to adjust an angle of the damping device according to the wind turbine parameter information and the damping angle information, and to generate a deployment signal for deploying the electric energy of the wind power generation device according to an amount of electric energy consumed by the control device, the damping device, and the supercomputing device;
wherein the supercomputing center system further comprises a connecting device connecting the first vessel and the second vessel, and wherein the preset angle for each of the first vessel and the second vessel is selected to generate a support effect using the connecting device, and
wherein the support effect offsets a portion of a tilting force experienced by the respective other of the first vessel and the second vessel when the first vessel or the second vessel experiences the tilting force.
Claim 5. (Proposed Examiner Amendment) The supercomputing system according to claim 1, wherein the first vessel and the second vessel each further comprise an energy storage device arranged on the hull, wherein the energy storage device is electrically connected to the wind power generation device, wherein the energy storage device is configured to store an excess electric energy, and wherein the energy storage device is further configured to supply the excess electric energy to the supercomputing device, the damping device, and the control device.
Claim 6. (Proposed Examiner Amendment) The supercomputing system according to claim 5, wherein generating the deployment signal comprises:
comparing, by the control device, the electric energy generated by the wind power generation device with the amount of electric energy consumed by the control device, the damping device, and the supercomputing device;
wherein, when the electric energy generated by the wind power generation device is greater than the amount of electric energy consumed, a difference between the electric energy generated and the amount of electric energy consumed is stored in the energy storage device as the excess electric energy.
Claim 7. (Proposed Examiner Amendment) The supercomputing system according to claim 6, wherein, when the electric energy generated by the wind power generation device is less than the amount of electric energy consumed, the energy storage device is controlled to output the excess electric energy to the supercomputing device, the damping device, and the control device.
Claim 8. (Proposed Examiner Amendment) The supercomputing system according to claim 1, wherein the first vessel and the second vessel each further comprise a mooring device, wherein the mooring device comprises a mooring cable connected between the hull and a counterweight block.
Claim 10. (Proposed Examiner Amendment) The supercomputing system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first mooring cable with a first end connected to the first vessel and a second end connected to a counterweight block located between the first vessel and the second vessel, and
a second mooring cable with a first end connected to the second vessel and a second end connected to the counterweight block.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, fails to disclose the subject matter recited by amended claim 1, as best understood by Examiner in view of the various deficiencies in the claim.
While general knowledge in the art is sufficient to modify Clidaras to include further wind-powered vessels which are connected to each other, as detailed in the Final Rejection mailed on 05/28/2026 and the Advisory Action mailed on 07/31/2026, common knowledge is not sufficient to render the instant subject matter (as best understood by Examiner) obvious.
As amended, “a connecting member” must not only provide a physical connection between the first and the second vessels, it must also enable one of the first and the second vessels to exert a force on the other one of the first and the second vessels when the other one is experiencing a tilting force (e.g., from wave action, wind action, etc.).
Thus, if Examiner’s best understanding of the claimed subject matter is accurate, claim 1 would be patentable if the rejections under §112 were overcome. The remaining dependent claims would be allowable at least by virtue of dependency from claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights