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 Amendment
The Applicant’s Amendment filed on 04/24/2025 in which claims 1, 19, and 22, have been amended, claims 2-6, 13-15, 17-18, and 25 have been canceled, claims 26 and 27 have been withdrawn, claims 28-29 have been added and entered of record.
The drawings have been amended herein to overcome the Drawing Objections. Based on the amended drawings, the objections to the drawing are withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amend to over com the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Based on the amended claim, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/08/2026 with respect to the amended claims 1 have been considered but are not persuasive because the arguments are based substantially on the newly added limitations by the applicant to the independent claim. Please see the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, limitations in lines 19-22 and lines 23-26 are duplicate.
Regarding claim 19, lines 1-2 recite “the housing”, improper antecedence basis, should be “a housing”.
Regarding claim 22, line 3 recite “a printed circuit board” should be “the printed circuit board”.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation is either duplicate of the limitation in claim 1, or “a marine vessel” is improper antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 12, 20-21, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snidow US Patent Publication 2013/0081676; hereinafter “Snidow” in view of Dixon US Patent Publication US 20080055177 A1; hereinafter “Dixon” and further in view of STREETT US Patent Publication 20130307464 A1 “STREETT”.
Regarding claim 1, Snidow discloses an apparatus (Fig. 4-7) for the conversion of power from a natural energy source into electricity [0015], and storage and distribution of electricity [0015] in a marine environment, the apparatus comprising:
i) one or more first devices (Fig. 4, 204) able to convert power from a natural energy source (solar light) into electricity [0015] [0034];
ii) one or more second devices (battery 210) able to store the electricity generated by the one or more first devices [0036];
iii) a third device (206/207; [0033] [0040] “Below the layer of back substrate 203 is the service layer and that may be comprised of both electronic service devices 206 and electrical service devices 207”) able to direct the electricity from the one or more first devices (204) to the one or more second devices (210);
iv) a fourth device (connections between panels [0040]) able to distribute the electricity from the apparatus ([0040] “[T]he photovoltaic cells may be electrically interconnected in series and/or parallel to form a functional solar panel and that then may also be electrically interconnected to other solar panel devices to form a solar panel array”);
wherein the one or more first devices comprise one or more photovoltaic cells (Fig. 4, 204s are solar cells which is in layer 202);
wherein the one or more second devices comprise one or more batteries [0040]; and
wherein the third device comprises a printed circuit board [0040];
wherein the one or more first devices form a first layer (Fig. 4, 202) positioned on top of a second layer (Fig. 4, 206/207), the second layer containing the third device [0040], wherein there is provided an air gap between the first and second layers to prevent or minimize condensation in high humidity conditions; and
wherein the apparatus is adapted to be attached to a surface of a deck of a marine vessel and positioned such that there is a small gap between the apparatus and the surface to allow for drainage of any accumulation of water on the deck.
Snidow discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 above, Snidow does not disclose an air gap between the first and second layers. Dixon discloses a solar system comprises a PCB with a gap between the solar layer and the PCB (Fig. 9 gap between PCB and PV). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Snidow to incorporate the teachings of Dixon and provide an air gap between the first and second layers. Doing so would higher efficiency, since the air gap would allow to isolate the solar panel and the PCB which allow the solar panel and the PCB cooler while prevent condensation.
The combination of Snidow and Dixon does not disclose the apparatus is adapted to be attached to a surface of a deck of a marine vessel and positioned such that there is a small gap between the apparatus and the surface to allow for drainage of any accumulation of water on the deck. STREETT discloses a solar system having solar modules attaching on the outer skin of a boat ([0008] boat’s skin including deck) and positioned that there is a small gap between the apparatus and the surface (Fig. 1, gaps between solar cells 14 gaps will provide drainage of water). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the combination of Snidow and Dixon to incorporate the teachings of Dixon and provide the apparatus is adapted to be attached to a surface of a deck of a marine vessel and positioned such that there is a small gap between the apparatus and the surface. Doing so would allow air flow between the surfaces to allow cooling and prevent accumulation of water on the deck.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 above, Snidow also discloses the apparatus is in the form of a tile or panel (Fig. 4-7, 200).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 above, Snidow also discloses an array comprising a plurality of apparatuses interconnected with each other (Fig. 6, 200s; [0035]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 20 above, Snidow discloses electrical power is stored in a battery [0036] located within a battery cell ([0036] a battery has a battery cell).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 above, STREETT also discloses the marine vessel comprising one or more apparatuses according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 above, Snidow discloses a method of generating ([0015] solar panel is for generate power) and storing power ([0015] battery is for storing power) comprising employing one or more apparatuses according to claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT in view of STUTTERHEIM et al., US Patent Publication 2019/0027624; hereinafter “STUTTERHEIM”.
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 above, Snidow disclose the panel 200 can be connected in an array which inherently having a form of interconnect for distribute electricity from and to the panels 200. Snidow does not disclose the interconnection device comprises three sub-layers therein. STUTTERHEIM disclose a PV system having an interconnection device comprises three sub-layers therein (Fig. 1C, 171, 175A, and 175B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT to incorporate the teachings of STUTTERHEIM and provide the interconnection device comprises three sub-layers. Doing so would allow protecting conductors of the interconnection device from expose to the elements.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Snidow, Dixon, STREETT and STUTTERHEIM discloses the apparatus according to claim 7 above, STUTTERHEIM further discloses the sub-layers include an electrically conductive sub-layer (Fig. 1C, 171) [0034] sandwiched between a second sub-layer (Fig. 1C, 175A) and a third sub-layer (Fig. 1C, 175B), both second and third sub-layers being substantially electrically non-conductive [0037] [0034].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Snidow, Dixon, STREETT and STUTTERHEIM discloses the apparatus according to claim 8 above, STUTTERHEIM further discloses the conductive sub- layer comprises copper and/or a composite alloy material [0034].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Snidow, Dixon, STREETT and STUTTERHEIM discloses the apparatus according to claim 9 above, STUTTERHEIM further discloses the composite alloy material comprises one or more of a rare earth magnetic metal, copper [0034], copper oxide, graphene, graphene oxide, cobalt and/or nickel.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Snidow, Dixon, STREETT and STUTTERHEIM discloses the apparatus according to claim 8 above, STUTTERHEIM further discloses the electrically conductive sub-layer comprises a flexible conductive mesh structure [0034].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT in view of Lomasney, US Patent Publication 20180183383; hereinafter “Lomasney”.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 18 above, Snidow also discloses the apparatus comprises a housing (Fig. 4, weatherproofed frame enclosure 105) containing the first, second, third and fourth devices [0016]. Snidow does not explicitly disclose the housing comprises a conductive material. Lomasney also discloses the housing comprises a conductive material [0018] and/or a self-repairing inhibitor located on its exterior. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT to incorporate the teachings of Lomasney and have the housing comprising conductive material. Doing so would allow proper grounding to prevent electrical shock
Claim(s) 16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT in view of LEIGH, WO Patent Publication 2018229510 and US Patent Publication 20200119211 is used for ease of mapping; hereinafter “LEIGH”.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 above, Snidow does not explicitly disclose the apparatus comprises quantum dots and/or a dye material. LEIGH discloses an integrated PV apparatus comprises quantum dots and/or a dye material [0021]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT to incorporate the teachings of LEIGH and have apparatus comprises quantum dots and/or a dye material. Doing so would allow maximizing the light energy captured by the apparatus.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 20 above, Snidow disclose electrical power is stored in a battery [0036] the combination of Snidow, discloses the array is operated in conjunction with one or more energy management cells [0040], the one or more energy management cells each comprising a printed circuit board [0040], which controls the flow of electricity across the array. LEIGH disclose an integrated PV system having an array is operated in conjunction with one or more energy management cells [0039], the one or more energy management cells each comprising a printed circuit board [0043], which controls the flow of electricity across the array [0039] [0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT to incorporate the teachings of LEIGH and have the array is operated in conjunction with one or more energy management cells, the one or more energy management cells each comprising a printed circuit board, which controls the flow of electricity across the array. Do in so would allow the PV system to have optimal efficiency and higher power output.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT in view of Jacques US Patent Publication 2018/0226917; hereinafter “Jacques”.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Snidow, Dixon and STREETT discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 above, Snidow discloses a capacitor [0040]. Snidow does not disclose the capacitor is a supper capacitor. Jacques discloses a solar system comprises one or more batteries and one or more supercapacitors [0345]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Snidow to incorporate the teachings of Jacques and provide one or more supercapacitors in addition to the one or more batteries. Doing so would allow prolong the life of the one or more batteries when incorporate the supercapacitor; and would allow increase efficiency of the solar system when using perovskite material for the PV panel.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Snidow, Dixon, STREETT and Jacques discloses the apparatus according to claim 28 above, Jacques also discloses the one or more supercapacitors comprise one or more materials selected from one or more perovskite compounds [0452], one or more metal oxides, nanotubes of a conductive material or metal oxides, an aqueous graphene-enhanced material, or an amount of a bismuth-containing material.
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 THAI H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0668. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Rexford Barney can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/THAI H TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights