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) 1-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Dong (KR 20210064582 A). With respect to claims 1-3, Dong discloses the claimed floating carrier with an embedded holder assembly provided in the floating carrier with the embedded holder assembly having a holder and a framework structure (note Figures 1-5). The framework structure is a symmetrical structure formed by crossing of a transverse beam and a longitudinal beam, the holder is provided at ends of the beams with the holder 120 being of an openable and closable structure (carabiner). The framework structure being in a tic tac toe structure (Figure 5). With respect to claims 4-5, note Dong, all the Figures. With respect to claim 12, note Dong, Figure 1, GP.
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (KR 20210064582 A). With respect to claims 6-8, Dong does not disclose the specific materials used. It would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to form the device of Dong of the claimed materials with a high likelihood of success for improved strength, durability and economy. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also that a person of ordinary skill in designing off shore floating structures would have years of experience and advanced degrees and would be familiar with various materials to provide a stable and durable structure to withstand the rigors of floating in ocean water.
Claim(s) 9-11, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (KR 20210064582 A) in view of Billings (US 2006/0075702). With respect to claims 9-11, Dong does not disclose metal cables. Billings teaches metal cables in a framework (paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to form the device of Dong with the framework cables being metal as taught by Billings with a high likelihood of success for improved strength, durability and economy. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also that a person of ordinary skill in designing off shore floating structures would have years of experience and advanced degrees and would be familiar with various materials to provide a stable and durable structure to withstand the rigors of floating in ocean waters. With respect to claim 14, note Dong, Figure 1, GP. With respect to claim 16, the method directly inherently follows from the structure of the combination; note also Dong all the Figures and Specification.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (KR 20210064582 A) in view of Van Otten et al (US 2017/0229997). With respect to claim 13, Dong does not disclose a tube and flat connector. Van Otten et al teach a tube 600 and a flat connector 100 with angle adjustment (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to form the device of Dong with a tube and flat connector as taught by Van Otten et al with a high likelihood of success for improved efficiency by orienting the solar panels toward the sun. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also that a person of ordinary skill in designing off shore floating structures would have years of experience and advanced degrees and would be familiar with various angles of orientation of solar panels to collect the most energy in an efficient manner.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (KR 20210064582 A) in view of Billings (US 2006/0075702), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Van Otten et al (US 2017/0229997). With respect to claim 15, Dong does not disclose a tube and flat connector. Van Otten et al teach a tube 600 and a flat connector 100 with angle adjustment (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to form the device of Dong with a tube and flat connector as taught by Van Otten et al with a high likelihood of success for improved efficiency by orienting the solar panels toward the sun. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note also that a person of ordinary skill in designing off shore floating structures would have years of experience and advanced degrees and would be familiar with various angles of orientation of solar panels to collect the most energy in an efficient manner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prentice et al (US 2021/0284076) shows a solar system.
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