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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
the module array being in a submerged position below a surface of the water (claims 16, 29-30 and 33)
Note: Applicant is requested to show the submerged position in phantom (dot-dash) lines. It is recommended that a new, cleaner figure 1a be added to show both the operating and well as the submerged positions of the module array relative to the waterline, preferably in a side view. Applicant is reminded that a corresponding description of the new figure should be added in the “description of the drawing” section of the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. In the present case, the claim limitation “fixing means for coupling to a bottom and/or to the surface of the body of water” (emphasis added) has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claims 16, 29-30 and 33 each sets forth a module array and an array holder, wherein the array holder is designed to move the module array between an operating position on a surface of the body of water and a submerged position below the surface of the body of water (emphasis added).
However, it is noted that the specification fails to disclose any specific actuating mechanism on the array holder (for example, a winch or a ballast tank) that can be used to intentionally move the module array from an operating position on the water surface to a submerged position below the water surface. The disclosure simply states that the array holder 110 is the positioning structure for the entire PV unit and is comprised of traction means, position buoys (and, optionally, further buoyancy bodies), mechanical couplings and suitable attachment points (¶0079 of the specification). However, the disclosure fails to provide any guidance on how the module array, which itself is buoyant and slidably attached to buoys 111, can be pulled by the array holder below the water surface.
Therefore, in absence of adequate guidance in the disclosure, a person skilled in the art would not be able to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
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 16-35 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.
In each of the independent claims 16, 29-30 and 33, the preamble limitation “A PV unit” renders the claim indefinite. It is not sufficiently clear if the phrase “PV unit” has been used to mean “photovoltaic unit” or something else. However, changing the phrase “A PV unit” to –A photovoltaic (PV) unit – will overcome this rejection.
In claim 16 and claim 33, the claim limitation “fixing means for coupling to a bottom and/or to the surface of the body of water” (emphasis added) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Although the written description mentions the phrase “fixing means, the specification fails to expressly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, it is not sufficiently clear if the limitation “fixing means” has been used to convey just an anchor or a combination of anchor with some other component (such as a traction rope). Consequently, in absence of such clarity, the claim is rendered indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 16-18, 21-22, 26-29 and 33, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosa Clot et al. (US 2011/0168235 A1).
Rosa Clot et al. disclose a photovoltaic (PV) unit for use on a body of water, comprising: a module array [1, 14] comprising at least one PV module; and an array holder [6, 7, 8] designed to move the module array between an operating position on a surface of the body of water and a submerged position below the surface of the body of water (see Fig 1), the array holder comprising fixing means [7] for coupling to a bottom and/or to the surface of the body of water, wherein the module array is movable in a direction relative to the array holder (see ¶0043, or alternatively, ¶0059-0060 and ¶0063).
Re claim 17, the module array is movable relative to the array holder up to at least one stop position.
Re claim 18, at least one of the module array and the array holder includes or is coupled with at least one of a buoyancy body [6] (see Fig 3) and a downforce body [10] with variable downforce (see ¶0044-0048).
Re claim 21, the degree of mobility of the module array relative to the array holder can be varied by adjusting the variable downforce exerted by the downforce body [10], and is therefore considered to be variable (see ¶0044-0048).
Re claim 22, the buoyancy body [6] has an elongated shape, with a ratio of width to length being 1:2 or less (see Fig 3).
Re claims 26 and 27, the downforce body [10] is a ballasting tank, and in an alternative, can act as a buoyancy body to assume a position below the surface of the body of water in an operating state, or to assume a position below the surface of the body of water at the submerged position or below.
Re claim 28, at least a portion of the fixing means for coupling of the array holder to the bottom and/or on the surface of the body of water lies outside an area of the module array as viewed in a vertical direction.
Re claim 29, the module array is shifted to a submerged position below the surface of the body of water when a situation is encountered involving a swell and/or storm above a given strength, and/or for cleaning purposes, and/or for interruption or reduction of the electricity production, and/or at low solar radiation (see ¶0053)
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.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosa Clot et al. (US 2011/0168235 A1) in view of CN 207354105 U (‘105). See the attached English translation.
Rosa Clot et al. disclose a photovoltaic (PV) unit, comprising: a plurality of array elements [14] connected to each other, as described above (see Fig 3).
Rosa Clot et al. however fail to disclose the array elements as being elastically connected to each other.
CN ‘105 discloses a photovoltaic (PV) unit, comprising a plurality of PV array elements that are elastically connected to each other with springs [7] (see Fig 1 and Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to connect the array elements of Rosa Clot et al. elastically using springs, as taught by CN ‘105. Having such a mechanism would have allowed the couplings between adjacent array elements to deform and absorb the impact of strong waves, thereby preventing the force of such waves from causing any damage to the array elements.
Re claim 31, the PV array of modified Rosa Clot et al. would be movable relative to the array holder up to at least one stop position, as noted previously.
Re claim 18, as noted previously, the PV array includes a buoyancy body [6] (see Fig 3) and/or a downforce body [10] with variable downforce (see ¶0044-0048).
Claims 16-22, 24-29, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102296599 B1 (‘599) in view of WO 2021193745 A1 (‘745).
KR ‘599 shows a photovoltaic (PV) unit, comprising: a module array [300] comprising at least one PV module [P]; and an array holder [100, 411] designed to move the module array, the array holder comprising fixing means [200, 210] for coupling to a bottom and/or to the surface of the body of water, wherein the module array is movable in a direction relative to the array holder (see Fig 2a and 2b).
KR ‘599 however fails to show the array holder moving the module array between an operating position on a surface of the body of water and a submerged position below the surface of the body of water.
WO ‘745 shows a photovoltaic (PV) unit, comprising: a module array [511] comprising at least one PV module, and an array holder [62] (see Fig 6), wherein the array holder moves the module array between an operating position on a surface of the body of water and a submerged position below the surface of the body of water (see the abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the array holder of KR ‘599 for moving the module array between an operating position on a surface of the body of water and a submerged position below the surface of the body of water, as taught by WO ‘745. Having such an arrangement would have protected the module array from damage during adverse and rough weather conditions.
Re 17, with the above modification in place, the module array of KR ‘599 would be movable relative to the array holder up to at least one stop position.
Re claim 18, at least one of the module array and the array holder includes or is coupled with at least one of a buoyancy body [430] and a downforce body with variable downforce.
Re claim 19, the array holder of modified of KR ‘599 includes a substantially vertically extending guide element [411] (see Fig 4a), said module array being movably coupled to the guide element.
Re claim 20, the guide element of modified of KR ‘599 includes a movably mounted running unit [412] (see Fig 4b), said module array connectable to the running unit.
Re claim 21, the degree of mobility of the module array relative to the array holder is variable.
Re claim 22, the buoyancy body has an elongated shape, with a ratio of width to length being 1:2 or less.
Re claim 24, the array holder [100, 411] is configured as a buoyancy body, wherein the module array is movable along at least the upright/vertical portion [411] of the buoyancy body.
Re claim 25, the horizontal portion of the buoyancy body is capable of, and therefore acting as a damping element for damping a movement thereof in water.
Re claims 26-27, with the above modification in place, the buoyancy body of KR ‘599 would be able to assume a position below the surface of the body of water in an operating state, and to assume a position below the surface of the body of water at the submerged position or below.
Re claim 28, at least a portion [210] of the fixing means lies outside a footprint area of the module array as viewed in a vertical direction (see Fig 2a).
Re claim 29, the module array of modified KR ‘599 is shifted between an operating position at a surface of the body of water and a submerged position below the surface of the body of water when an adverse weather situation is encountered involving a swell or storm above a given strength, as described WO ‘745.
Re claim 33, the array holder of modified KR ‘599 is configured to move a module array of the PV unit between an operating position on a surface of the body of water and a submerged position below the surface of the body of water, as described above.
Re claim 34, the array holder of modified of KR ‘599 comprises a substantially vertically extending guide element [411] (see Fig 4a) for guiding a movement of the module array.
Re claim 35, the guide element of modified of KR ‘599 includes a movably mounted running unit [412] (see Fig 4b) for attachment of the module array.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 would be allowable if the applicant is able to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) without changing the scope of the claim, and if the claim is rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE-102007029921 shows a floating photovoltaic array with variable buoyancy
KR-20190037642 shows a floating photovoltaic array movable between an operating position on a surface of the body of water and a submerged position below the surface of the body of water
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 pm.
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.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615