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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109774879 (called 879) in view of CN105756012 (called 012).
Re claim 1: 879 discloses a floating-type wind-power generation platform with a first transverse connector and at least two floating support components as seen in the stabilizing columns 215a–215c, arranged at intervals on the water surface in a horizontal direction to provide installation locations for wind turbines. Horizontal tubular member 210a/210b includes a connecting rod having ends connected to adjacent stabilizing columns. However 879 doesn’t directly discloses an outwardly extending web plate 2 connected to a structural member and projecting outwardly into the surrounding water however 012 does disclose these limitations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to provide the horizontal connecting rod 210a/210b of 879 with an outwardly extending plate corresponding to 012’s web plate 2, such that the plate extends from an outer side wall of the connecting rod in a direction away from the center of the connecting rod which would be done to increase damping effects and also to dissipate wave energy.
Re claim 2: 879 does not disclose web plates, however 012 does disclose them. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of application to include two such web plates 2 projecting from the structural members into the water so as to increase damping effects on the opposite sides of the connecting rods.
Re claims 3 and 4: 879 discloses transverse connecting members located between the floating support components 215a–215c and, in the illustrated platform, near the lower portions of the columns. 012 teaches a substantially horizontally extending web plate 2 at the bottom of the box body 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of application to arrange the outward-extending plate horizontally and to place the connecting rod near the bottoms of the floating support components to maximize interaction with water flow so as to dampen the movement.
Re claims 5 and 6: 012 teaches connecting a web plate 2 to an exterior portion of a structural body 1 and a cylindrical or tubular connecting rod 210a/210b, positioning the plate at the location of greatest horizontal radial distance from the rod center would have been an inherent result of attaching the plate to the outermost side of the rod. Alternatively, selecting that attachment location would have been an obvious geometric design choice to provide a balanced and effective wave-interaction surface. This would be done for stability reasons.
Re claims 7 and 8: it would have been obvious to make the connection plate any needed size through routine testing and experimentation. This would be done for cost savings and stability as well as structural needs.
Re claims 9-12: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide reinforcing ribs as seen in 012 to the connecting rods of 879 for stability.
Re claims 13-14: 879 discloses tubular or cylindrical connecting rods. It’s unclear if the disclosed rods are hollow, however being a waterborne structure, it would be obvious to make them hollow for weight savings and for efficient use of materials while keeping them strong.
Re claims 15-16: 879 discloses in the figures that the hull and structures are vertical supports.
Re claim 17: as seen in 879 a wind turbine structure is seen attached to the support structure. See figure 2 and also see rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 18: see rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 19: see rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 20: see rejection of claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY D COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-6886. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5am-2pm.
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, TC Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. 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.
TIMOTHY D. COLLINS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
