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 03/19/2026 (“the Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claim 10 under §112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. The rejection of claims 1-9 under §103 based on the combination of Clidaras, Tabe, Aldin, and common knowledge is maintained, modified as necessary in view of Applicant’s traversal.
Applicant’s traversal of the rejections under §103 begins in substance on page 7 of the Remarks. There, Applicant contends that Clidaras fails to disclose “the control device is configured to: generate wind turbine parameter information according to real-time sea state information of a sea area where the wind-powered vessel is located, and control the wind power generation device to generate electric energy according to the wind turbine parameter information….”
Examiner admits to this deficiency on pages 4-5 of the prior Office Action. This subject matter was rejected based on common knowledge in the art, i.e., that which is “well-known” by those of ordinary skill. See pages 6-7 of the prior Office Action. Applicant’s discussion of Tabe and Aldin is entirely moot as neither reference was relied upon to teach the contested subject matter. Indeed, Applicant does not discuss the rejection of record at all, seemingly ignoring the findings of well-known subject matter in the pending rejection. As Applicant is contesting the subject matter, the Remarks will be interpreted as contesting the findings of well-known subject matter.
MPEP §2144.03 provides guidance on rejections which rely on findings of common knowledge or “well-known” subject matter. When an Applicant contests such findings, Examiner must produce prior art which serves as evidence of the previous findings. Here, the contested subject matter may be summarized as the provision of a control device which is configured to generate wind turbine parameter information based on real-time conditions of the body of water in which the wind turbine is positioned and, subsequently, controlling the wind turbine utilizing the generated parameters.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0082160 (“Lee”) discloses a floating wind turbine (see FIG 1, abstract) wherein a control system (FIG 1, system manager 24; see also paras. [0018] and [0021-32]) is provided and configured to obtain real-time sea state information (para. [0026], “on-board weather data collected;” para. [0028] “environmental weather conditions reported to it by external sources”) and generate wind turbine parameter information (e.g., para. [0031] where the manager generates power generation commands based on an amount of required power; para. [0026], “determine the optimal parameters for collecting wind flows”) which is used to control the turbine to generate electric energy (para. [0031]).
Thus, Lee evidences and supports Examiner’s finding that the contested subject matter is “well-known in the art.” An appropriate rejection is provided below. Per MPEP §2144.03(D), “[i]f the examiner adds a reference in the next Office action after applicant’s rebuttal, and the newly added reference is added only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding, and it does not result in a new issue or constitute a new ground of rejection, the Office action may be made final.” Thus, the rejection below cannot be interpreted as being a new ground of rejection because the Lee reference is provided for nothing other the subject matter already found to be well-known.
With respect to claim 10, Examiner notes that the claim was previously rejected under §112(b) for lack of clarity and definiteness that precluded examination based on prior art. The rejection being overcome by Applicant’s amendments, the claim has now been evaluated in view of the prior art. As amended, it is now clear that claim 10 requires each of the first and second vessels to have a respective mooring cable, each mooring cable being disposed between the first and second vessel, and each mooring cable being affixed at one end to a common counterweight block.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0016419 (“Sheldon”) discloses a floating, self-powered computing buoy, making it analogous to the floating data center of Clidaras. The Sheldon reference further discloses a plurality of such buoys (FIG 17) and further discloses at least two of the buoys (260, 262) being moored to the same counterweight block (float 267) via respective mooring tethers (273) which are each located between the first and second buoy (as shown in FIG 17).
An appropriate rejection is provided below. As the new ground of rejection for claim 10 is necessitated by Applicant’s amendments of claim 10, the Office action may be made final.
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.
Claim(s) s 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0295167 (“Clidaras”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0244450 (“Tabe”), U.S Patent Application Publication 2007/0157864 (“Aldin”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0082160 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Clidaras discloses:
A floating data center system, comprising:
a wind-powered (see, e.g., para. [0052] discussing the use of stationary wind turbines as a means for providing power to onboard systems, including the data center) vessel (see, e.g., FIGS 1-2 depicting a floating vessel having platform 102), comprising a hull (unlabeled, but inherent to the presence and disclosure of the floating vessel);
a damping device, connected with the hull and configured to maintain stability of the hull;
at least one data center module (104), arranged on the hull and configured to perform operations (inherent from the disclosure of a data center);
a control device (para. [0082]; “floating platform…may have integrated control systems”), arranged on the hull and communicatively connected with the data center modules (Id., see discussion of adding power supply based on data center load);
a wind power generation device (wind turbines, see paras. [0052-53]), configured to supply electric energy to the vessel and its systems (“[e]lectrical and pumping power may also come from devices powered directly by the wind” such as “wind turbines” that are “mounted …to an ocean floor”);
wherein the control device is configured to: generate a deployment signal for deploying the electric energy of the wind power generation device according to amount of electric energy consumption of the onboard systems of the vessel (para. [0082]).
Clidaras does not disclose: the data center comprising a super computing device; a damping device connected with the hull and configured to maintain stability of the hull; the control device being connected to the damping device; the wind turbines being arranged on the hull and configured to power the super computer, the damping device, and the controller; the control device being configured to generate wind turbine parameter information and damping angle information according to real-time seas state information of a sea area where the wind-powered vessel is located, and to control the wind power generation device to generate electrical energy and adjust an angle of the damping device according to the generated information.
While Clidaras does not explicitly disclose the “data centers” being or comprising “supercomputing device(s),” those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and appreciate that “data centers” and “supercomputer devices” are fundamentally nothing more than one or more computers grouped together to perform specified processes. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Clidaras to include supercomputing devices within the data center modules disclosed therein for the purposes of enabling the system of Clidaras to perform more computationally difficult tasks that a typical data center may not be suited for.
With respect to “a damping device,” as well as the configuration, control, and powering thereof, Clidaras is seemingly silent. Aldin discloses a damping device (title, abstract) for a boat that is connected to the hull (inherent; see also FIGS 5-7) and configured to maintain stability of the hull (see, e.g., paras. [0007] and [0040]), wherein the damping device is configured to be controlled by a control device (“calculator 43”, see paras. [0099-100]) based on measured real-time environmental conditions (para. [0100], “means to measure the boat’s environment so as to determine the wave movements upstream of each submerged float”) to generate appropriate damping angles for the damping device (see, e.g., para. [0040]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to further modify Clidaras to explicitly include the damping device utilizing the configuration and control, as disclosed by Aldin, for the purposes of maintaining stability of the floating vessel in Clidaras as the vessel operates in waters of varying turbulence, thereby preventing damage (e.g., tilting or collapse of equipment within the data center modules) to onboard systems.
With respect to arrangement of the wind turbines on the hull of the vessel, Clidaras is seemingly silent. Tabe, however, discloses a floating vessel having a plurality of wind turbines arranged on a hull (indirectly; the turbines are arranged on an upper platform of the vessel as shown by FIG 1) for the purposes of delivering power to onboard systems of the floating vessel (see, e.g., para. [0073] discussing self-sustainability of the vessel, inhering that the power generation elements thereon are configured to supply power to ship systems and loads). Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Clidaras to further include wind turbines arranged on a hull thereof for the purposes of powering ship systems and loads without needing to be anchored or affixed to stationary wind turbines, thereby enabling the floating vessel to continue operating during periods of movement that may be necessary to avoid inclement weather conditions1.
Finally, with respect to the control device generating parameter information for the wind turbine and damping angle information for the damping device, the generated information being based on real-time sea state information of a proximal sea area, followed by controlling the wind turbine to generate electrical power and adjusting the angle of the damping device, Lee discloses a floating wind turbine (see FIG 1, abstract) wherein a control system (FIG 1, system manager 24; see also paras. [0018] and [0021-32]) is provided and configured to obtain real-time sea state information (para. [0026], “on-board weather data collected;” para. [0028] “environmental weather conditions reported to it by external sources”) and generate wind turbine parameter information (e.g., para. [0031] where the manager generates power generation commands based on an amount of required power; para. [0026], “determine the optimal parameters for collecting wind flows”) which is used to control the turbine to generate electric energy (para. [0031]). Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify the controller of Clidaras such that it is configured to collect sea-state data for the body of water in which the wind turbine is located, generate appropriate operational parameters for the wind turbine, and control the turbine using the generated parameters for the purposes of optimizing power generation, as taught by Lee.
In view of the foregoing, Examiner finds that the combination of Clidaras in view of Tabe, Aldin, and Lee (“the first combination”) within the art discloses each and every limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the damping device comprising a damping plate (Aldin, FIG 1:7), a power apparatus, one end of the power apparatus being connected to the damping plate, and the other end being connected with the hull (Aldin, see para. [0066], “a drive mechanism of a known type”), wherein the power apparatus is electrically connected to the wind power generation device (inherent result of the combination made in claim 1), and the power apparatus is communicatively connected to the control device (inherent result of the combination made in claim 1), wherein the wind power generation device is configured to supply electric energy to the power apparatus (inherent result of the combination made in claim 1, as the wind turbines are disclosed by Tabe as being adequate to provide self-sustaining power to the vessel, thereby requiring all onboard systems to be powered by the wind turbines), and the control device is configured to adjust an angle of the damping plate through the power apparatus according to the damping angle information (Aldin, paras. [0069] and [0100]).
Regarding claim 3, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the supercomputing device comprising a container arranged on the hull (Clidaras, data center module 104 is disclosed as being “contained in inter-modal freight containers”) and a supercomputing apparatus (inherent to Clidaras; a supercomputer apparatus is a computer, and the data center modules of Clidaras comprise one or more computers) and a water-cooling apparatus (Clidaras, see FIG 5, depicting a water cooling system for the data center modules, inhering the present of some “water cooling apparatus” within each of the containers), wherein the supercomputing apparatus and the water-cooling apparatus are installed within the container (Clidaras, see FIG5 5) and the water-cooling apparatus being configured to cool the super computer apparatus (Clidaras, see para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 4, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the wind power generation apparatus comprising a tower (Tabe, FIG 9:71 and para. [0138]) arranged on the hull (as shown by FIG 9); a wind turbine, arranged on a top portion of the tower (turbine 810, 840), at least one fan blade (FIG 11:802, para. [0140]) that is rotationally connected to the wind turbine, and which has an axial direction corresponding to rotation of the fan blade being set at a preset angle with respect to a bow direction of the wind powered vessel (para. [0163], blade 6 configured with a pitch 2), wherein the wind turbine is electrically connected to the control device (inherent result of the combination made in claim 1), the wind power generation device is configured to supply electric energy to the control device (inherent result of the combination made in claim 1), and the control device is configured to adjust the rotation of the fan blade through the wind turbine according to the wind turbine parameter information (para. [0163], “pitch 2 is responsive to the wind and responsible for the speed of the rotor”).
Regarding claim 5, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Tabe further discloses an energy storage device (FIG 1:805, 900) arranged on the hull (see FIG 1) wherein the energy storage apparatus is electrically connected to the wind power generation device (para. [0126], disclosing that power generated by the wind turbine may be stored in storage medium 900), the storage device being further configured to deliver power to the supercomputer device, damping device, and control device (inherent; as noted above, Tabe discloses self-sufficiency of the floating vessel; in situations where the vessel receives insufficient wind and wave power to sustain itself, it would necessarily rely on electrical power stored within the storage mediums 805 and 900 in order to be “self-sustaining” as disclosed in para. [0073]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Applicant effectively recites scenarios wherein excess power (i.e., generated power is “greater than the electric energy indicated by the deployment signal”) is generated by the wind turbines (claim 6) and wherein wind turbine power is insufficient (i.e., when power generated “is less than the electric energy indicated by the deployment signal”) for powering onboard systems (claim 7). Tabe explicitly discloses storage of electrical power generated by the wind turbines (para. [0126]), which may be plausibly and reasonably interpreted as “excess power” because it would not remain stored if it were necessary for the self-sustaining operation contemplated by Tabe, thus the subject matter of claim 6 is disclosed by the first combination. With respect to claim 7, Examiner already discusses the inherency of this subject matter in claim 5, above. As Tabe discloses self-sufficiency, it logically and inherently follows that the storage means of Tabe must be configured to provide power to onboard systems when the wind and wave generators of Tabe are insufficient. Thus, the first combination also discloses the subject matter of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the use of multiple mooring devices (Clidaras, FIG 1A; unlabeled mooring lines connected to counterweight blocks 108) comprising a mooring cable (para. [0030], “mooring lines”) and a counterweight block (anchor 108), one end of the mooring cable being connected to the vessel (as shown, several mooring lines are directly affixed to the vessel) and the other wend being connected to counterweight blocks (108, as shown).
Regarding claim 9, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose the inclusion of a second vessel that is connected to the first vessel via a connecting device. This difference, however, is transparently nothing more than obvious duplication of parts. The courts have previously held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Here, providing a second vessel has the obvious and expected benefit of increasing the amount of power which may be captured by the wind turbines, as well as the obvious and expected benefit of providing additional computing resources. With respect to the connection between the first and second vessels, those of ordinary skill would appreciate that, at least when moored to a dock, the first and second vessels would be connected via the dock, making the dock “a connecting device.” Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Clidaras to include a second vessel that is connected to the first vessel via a mooring dock when the vessels are in a harbor for the obvious and expected purposes of providing both additional power and computational resources in a location that is easily accessible for maintenance purposes.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the first combination as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0016419 (“Sheldon”).
Regarding claim 10, the first combination discloses the limitations of claim 9 as set forth above but does not disclose each of the first and second vessels to have a respective mooring cable, each mooring cable being disposed between the first and second vessel, and each mooring cable being affixed at one end to a common counterweight block.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0016419 (“Sheldon”) discloses a floating, self-powered computing buoy, making it analogous to the floating data center of Clidaras. The Sheldon reference further discloses a plurality of such buoys (FIG 17) and further discloses at least two of the buoys (260, 262) being moored to the same counterweight block (float 267) via respective mooring tethers (273) which are each located between the first and second buoy (as shown in FIG 17).
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Clidaras to include a second vessel having its own mooring cable, and connecting the mooring cables of the first and second vessel to a shared counterweight block, as taught by Sheldon, for the purposes of collecting additional power at a designated location while ensuring the first and second vessels do not float away from the designated location.
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 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
1 An inherent result of this modification is that the data center, control systems, and any ship control systems (such as stabilizers) may receive power from the wind turbines.
Prosecution Insights