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 § 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 19-20 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. Claims 21-22 and 32-34 which are dependent on claim 19 are similarly rejected.
Claims 19 and 20 both recite the limitations "on the one hand" and “on the other hand” in lines 2 and 3 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 18, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neumann (EP 1876093 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Neumann teaches a floating support structure (¶ [0001]) with multiple central columns for offshore wind turbine, comprising: at least two identical and independent tubular central columns which are assembled together around an axis of a mast of the wind turbine (Figures 1 and 9, elements 74. ¶ [0036]) so as to form a floating support pylon fitting in the vertical extension of the mast of the wind turbine; a lower connector centered on the axis of the mast of the wind turbine (Figure 15a, elements 88 and 98) and intended to ensure that the forces of the central columns are held and taken up at their respective lower ends; and an upper connector centered on the axis of the mast of the wind turbine and comprising, in an upper part, reception means of the mast of the wind turbine (Figure 8a, element 62. ¶[0035]) and, in a lower part, at least two upper receptacles to receive an upper end of the central columns (Figure 8a, element 70. ¶ [0060]), each central column being connected to at least one tubular crosspiece (elements 106) an end of which opposite the central column constitutes a flotation node spaced radially from the floating support pylon so as to form a float of semi-submersible type (elements 28, ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 23, Neumann teaches the invention in claim 18, wherein the axis of the mast of the wind turbine is aligned on a center of symmetry of the float (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 29, Neumann teaches the invention in claim 18, wherein the lower connector is an independent piece of the central columns and comprises at least two lower receptacles to each receive a lower end of the central columns (Figure 10b).
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) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (EP 1876093 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Neumann teaches a process for assembling a floating support structure according to claim 18, but fails to specifically teach a dry assembly step of the lower end of each central column on the lower connector, followed by a dry assembly step of the upper connector on the upper end of each central column. However, Neumann teaches assembling the structure on land or on a dry surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art prior to the effective filing date to specify and optimize the steps of assembling Neumann’s structure on land or on a dry surface, in order to facilitate the quickest and most efficient method of construction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the teachings of Neumann), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (EP 1876093 A1) in view of Pena Sagastuy et al. (US 20240309852 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Neumann teaches the invention in claim 18, but fails to specifically teach wherein the axis of the mast of the wind turbine is offset relative to a center of symmetry of the float. However, use of offset and asymmetrical wind turbines is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-4E of Pena Sagastuy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate an offset and non-symmetrical wind turbine base comprising ballast piping and columns as demonstrated in (¶ [0024, 0052, 0068]) of Pena Sagastuy, into Neumann in order to offset the weight of the turbine and improve stability.
Regarding claim 27, Neumann teaches the invention in claim 18, but fails to specifically teach wherein each floating unit assembly comprises a network of ballast pipes housed inside at least one of the crosspieces and of the central column. However, use of offset and asymmetrical wind turbines is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-4E of Pena Sagastuy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate an offset and non-symmetrical wind turbine base comprising ballast piping and columns as demonstrated in (¶ [0024, 0052, 0068]) of Pena Sagastuy, into Neumann in order to offset the weight of the turbine and improve stability.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (EP 1876093 A1) in view of Nim (US 20060165493 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Neumann teaches the invention in claim 18, but fails to specifically teach the respective flotation nodes of the floating unit assemblies are connected to each other by at least one cable, the flotation nodes comprising tensioning devices of the cable. However, use of tension cables to connect flotation nodes on semi-submersible wind turbine vessels are well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶ [0004, 0025] and Figure 3 of Nim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate tension cables into Neumann, in order to provide increased tension and structural stability to combat wind and wave loads on the structure.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann (EP 1876093 A1) in view of Vatne (US 20220144390 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Neumann teaches the invention in claim 18, but fails to specifically teach wherein the floating support pylon and/or at least one of the radial crosspieces comprises at least one central flotation unit. However, use of floating support pylons on floating wind turbine structures is well known in the art as is evidenced by elements 7 and 8 in ¶ [0045-0046] and Figures 1-8 of Vatne. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate floating support pylons into Neumann, in order to provide additional buoyancy and stability into Neumann’s semi-submersible wind turbine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 30 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.
Claims 19-22 and 32-34 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0430-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
