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 .
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)(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) 1, 3-4, 6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Van Keulen (US 2021/246864). With respect to claims 1, 6, 13-14, Van Keulen discloses the claimed solar powered aquatic transloading system 1 with a first floating vessel 10 with an electric motor (page 2, lines 8-37), a second floating vessel 50 with a first solar panel configured with an at least one photovoltaic cell operable to generate a current, a power network or grid (including hubs 20) operably coupled between the first floating vessel and the second floating vessel, with the power network receiving current from the first solar panel and transfers a suitable output current to the electric motor (page 2, lines 8-37), (note also all of the Figures). With respect to claim 3, note Van Keulen, Figure 4. With respect to claim 4, note Van Keulen, 52, Figure 3. With respect to claim 14, note Van Keulen, page 13, lines 30-36.
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) 2, 7, 10-12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Keulen (US 2021/246864) in view of McGinnis (US 2004/0211348). With respect to claims 2, 7, 11, 13-14, Van Keulen does not disclose a tug and barge. McGinnis teaches a tug and barge (paragraph 0044). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Van Keulen with a tug and barge as taught by Hine et al with a high likelihood of success for improved vessel handling. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention in designing complex and very expensive marine power grid systems would have years of experience in the art and advanced degrees. Such a person would be familiar with various types of marine vessels and would have found the combination to have been obvious. With respect to claims 7, 10, 12, it would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the system of Van Keulen with the specific ranges claimed and to use diesel power for improved vessel power and propulsion. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention in designing complex and very expensive marine power grid systems would have years of experience in the art and advanced degrees. Such a person would be familiar with various types of ranges and fuel types and would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Keulen (US 2021/246864) in view of Hine et al (US 2007/0173141). With respect to claims 15-16, Van Keulen does not disclose a satellite gps steering system. Hine et al teach a satellite gps steering system (paragraph 0139). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Van Keulen with a satellite gps steering system as taught by Hine et al with a high likelihood of success for improved vessel control. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention in designing complex and very expensive marine power grid systems would have years of experience in the art and advanced degrees. Such a person would be familiar with GPS steering systems and would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claims 5 and 8-9 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ivandaev et al (WO 2014185811 A1) show vessels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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, Samuel J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615