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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species C1 in the reply filed on 10/07/2025is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not independent and distinct. This is not found persuasive because the identified species each have mutually exclusive features which necessarily require separate if overlapping fields of search. It is additionally pointed out that, the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive.
Examiner has considered applicant’s claim by claim analysis. Claim 40 is withdrawn from consideration. Regarding claim 40, applicant expressly elected the gas filed embodiment of Fig. 7A
Applicant’s proposal of alternative species for the examiner to consider is moot.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 21-39 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.
Claim 21 recites “said horizontal plan”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. This appears to be a typographical error intended to recite “horizontal plane”, however, Claim 21 previously provides for two opposing horizontal planes. It is unclear which plane applicant is referencing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22-39 are indefinite at least by virtue of dependency.
Claims 27, 28, and 35 recite “said convex lens”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claims previously provide for a plurality of convex lenses. It is unclear which lens applicant is referring.
Claim 32 recites “a low albedo”. The term “low albedo” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 33 recites “a high albedo” The term “high albedo” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 34 recites “the floating pond cover of claim 1”. Claim 1 has been cancelled by amendment. The improper dependency of the claim renders the claim indefinite.
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) 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 36, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mora US6571789 in view of Rosene et al. US2006005830.
Regarding claim 21, Mora US6571789 teaches a floating pond cover comprising:
a plurality of substantially planar hexagonal cells (Fig. 1, cells 2, hexagonal periphery 3),
each cell having an upper half and a lower half and defining six edges in a symmetrical hexagonal shape (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4), wherein each cell is airtight and watertight (Col. 5 Ln. 10-15), wherein each cell is constructed of plastic (abstract);
wherein said upper half and said lower half define opposing horizontal planes extending between said six edges and defining a closed cell body (Fig. 3),
wherein said top half and said bottom half each comprises at least one lens having a lens center at a center of said hexagonal cell (Col. 2 Ln. 10-15),
wherein said convex lenses are configured with optical properties to transmit, reflect and/or refract light (Col. 2 Ln. 10-15);
wherein said top half and said bottom half are symmetrical such that each of said planar hexagonal cells is invertible in said floating pond cover (best seen in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).
Mora does not teach said top half and said bottom half each comprises at least one convex lens extending outward from said horizontal plane.
Rosene et al. US2006005830 teaches a floating pool or pond cover wherein lenses are formed by convex surfaces (Fig. 2, ¶19). Rosene teaches that such a configuration yields the predictable result of intensifying solar radiation (¶19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with convex lenses since doing so amounts to a simple substitution of known shapes in the art of flowing pool covers with the known predictable result of intensifying solar radiation.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Mora does not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21 wherein each of said top half and said bottom half comprises a plurality of convex lenses, each of said top half and said bottom half having one convex lens having said lens center positioned at said center of said hexagonal cell.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts to a mere duplication of parts of the prior art devices.
Rosene et al. US2006005830 teaches a floating pool or pond cover wherein lenses are formed by and array of convex surfaces (Fig. 2, ¶19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device to have a plurality of convex surfaces since doing so amounts to a mere duplication of parts of the prior art device and would provide the known predictable result of intensifying solar radiation. Further such a modification would accommodate changes in size or dimensions of the prior art device.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Mora teaches the floating pond cover of claim 21 wherein said six edges comprise a rigid frame (Mora, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4; Col. 4 Ln. 1-8 Mora teaches various suitable plastics which overlap in scope with applicant’s disclosed plastics).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Mora teaches the floating pond cover of claim 23wherein said rigid frame is welded to said six edges (Mora, abstract).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Mora teaches the floating pond cover of claim 21 wherein said at least one convex lens on each of said top half and bottom half consists of a number selected from the group consisting of 1, 7 and 19 (Mora’s halves consists of 1 lens, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Mora teaches the floating pond cover of claim 21wherein said plastic comprises a transparent polymer configured to transmit solar irradiance (Mora, Claim 9, Col. 4 Ln. 1-8).
Regarding claim 36, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21wherein each of said plurality of convex lenses is the same size.
Mora Fig. 1 teaches a configuration where in each of the lenses are the same size. Mora teaches that this eases fabrication (Col. 2 Ln. 30-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device such that the lenses are the same size since doing so would ease fabrication.
Regarding claim 38, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21wherein each at least one convex lens comprises a plurality of lenses, wherein each of said lenses is of equal radius of curvature.
Mora Fig. 1 teaches a configuration where in each of the lenses are the same size having the same radius (Col. 4 Ln. 31-33). Mora teaches that having the same dimensions eases fabrication (Col. 2 Ln. 30-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device such that the lenses have equal radius of curvature since doing so would ease fabrication.
Claim(s) 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mora US6571789 in view of Rosene et al. US2006005830 in view Moreland US4641400.
Regarding claim 25, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21further comprising a plurality of ties to tie the upper half to said lower half.
Moreland US4641400 teaches a pool of pond cover (abstract) wherein cable ties are used as connector means (Col. 4 Ln. 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with cable ties, as taught by Moreland, since doing so amounts to a known technique for connecting a pond of pool cover with the known predictable result of attaching components.
Regarding claim 26, the previously combined references teach the floating pond cover of claim 25wherein said tie comprises a tension strap (Moreland, cable ties are necessarily held in tension).
Claim(s) 27, 28, 35, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mora US6571789 in view of Rosene et al. US2006005830 in view of Fuchs US3998204.
Regarding claim 27, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21wherein said convex lens comprises a hemisphere.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts toa change of shape of the prior art device.
Fuchs US3998204 teaches a floating cover for heating a liquid wherein the lens may take various shapes including spheres or spheroids (Fig. 2 – Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device to have a lens comprising a hemisphere since doing so amounts to a routine change of shape known in the prior art with the known predictable result of focusing radiation (Fuchs, Col. 4 Ln. 10-12)
Regarding claim 28, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21wherein said convex lens comprises a spherical cap.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts toa change of shape of the prior art device.
Fuchs US3998204 teaches a floating cover for heating a liquid wherein the lens may take various shapes including spheres or spheroids (Fig. 2 – Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device to have a lens comprising a sphere since doing so amounts to a routine change of shape known in the prior art with the known predictable result of focusing radiation (Fuchs, Col. 4 Ln. 10-12)
Regarding claim 35, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21wherein said wherein said convex lens extends to each of said edges.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts to a change of shape of the prior art device.
Fuchs US3998204 teaches a floating cover for heating a liquid wherein the lens may take various shapes including shapes where the lens extends to edges of the device (Fig. 1 – Fig. 7) thereby allowing the lenses to cover more surface area (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device to have a lens extending to the edges since doing so amounts to a routine change of shape known in the prior art with the known predictable result of allowing the lenses to cover more surface area
Regarding claim 39, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21wherein said ate least one complex lens comprises a plurality of lenses, wherein each convex lens has a point of contact with each neighboring lens.
Fuchs US3998204 teaches a floating cover for heating a liquid wherein the lens may take various shapes including shapes where the lens extends to edges of the device (Fig. 1 – Fig. 7) each lens having a point of contact with a neighboring lens thereby allowing the lenses to cover more surface area (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device to have lenses with points of contact to neighboring lenses since doing so amounts to a routine change of shape known in the prior art with the known predictable result of allowing the lenses to cover more surface area
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mora US6571789 in view of Rosene et al. US2006005830 in view of Birger US20130121766.
Regarding claim 29, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21 further comprising a series of magnets positioned at a center of each of said edges of said planar hexagonal cells, said magnets being configured to hold said substantially planar hexagonal cells in alignment in said floating pond cover.
Birger US20130121766 teaches a floating device comprising a plurality of floating members wherein the floating devices comprise a series of magnets positioned on respective sides of the device such that the devices attach magnetically to adjacent devices whereby providing assembly and holding the devices together (¶128-¶131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with series of magnets positioned at a center of each of said edges since doing so amounts to a known technique for attaching floating liquid cover elements together with the known predictable result of attaching and aligning the device.
Claim(s) 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mora US6571789 in view of Rosene et al. US2006005830 in view Field US10701871.
Regarding claim 32, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21wherein said plastic comprises a low albedo configured for absorption of solar irradiance.
Field US10701871 teaches a floating cover for a body of water (abstract) wherein the albedo of the device may vary from 0.15 to 1 (abstract). Field teaches that the albedo is a results effective variable which varies the absorption/reflection of solar energy (Col. 2 Ln. 59-65) and that an albedo may be selected to optimize thermal performance (Col. 5 Ln. 31-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device to have an albedo within the claimed range since doing so amounts to an optimization of a results effective variable known in the art and would optimize the thermal performance of the device for a given application.
Regarding claim 33, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 21wherein said plastic comprises a high albedo configured to reflect solar irradiance.
Field US10701871 teaches a floating cover for a body of water (abstract) wherein the albedo of the device may vary from 0.15 to 1 (abstract). Field teaches that the albedo is a results effective variable which varies the absorption/reflection of solar energy (Col. 2 Ln. 59-65) and that an albedo may be selected to optimize thermal performance (Col. 5 Ln. 31-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device to have an albedo within the claimed range since doing so amounts to an optimization of a results effective variable known in the art and would optimize the thermal performance of the device for a given application.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mora US6571789 in view of Rosene et al. US2006005830 in view of Smith US3893443
Regarding claim 34, as best understood, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the floating pond cover of claim 1 wherein said plastic comprises a translucent polymer.
Smith US3893443 teaches a floating pool cover wherein the cover is made of a transparent of translucent plastic thereby passing short rays of sunlight and preventing the passage of long rays (Col. 3 Ln. 39-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device to be made of a translucent plastic, as taught by Smith, Since doing so amounts to a simple substitution of known materials in the art with the known predictable results of passing short rays of sunlight and preventing the passage of long rays.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mora US6571789 in view of Rosene et al. US2006005830 in view of CN112762627A.
Regarding claim 37, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose floating pond cover of claim 21wherein said at least one convex lenses comprises a plurality of convex lenses is arranged in a honeycomb structure.
CN112762627A teaches a solar pool heating device wherein the top lens is convex and comprises a plurality of lenses in a honeycomb structure (abstract, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a honeycomb lens structure as taught by CN112762627A since doing so amounts to a simple substitution of known lens structure in the field of solar pools with the known predictable result of collecting sunlight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deepak Deean whose telephone number is (571)270-3347. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/DEEPAK A DEEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762