Flexible and Rollable Self-Floating and Self-Buoyant Solar Panels and Photovoltaic Devices

Application No. 18/372,720

• Filed: Sep 26, 2023
• Examiner: GOLDEN, ANDREW J
• Art Unit: 1726
• Tech Center: 1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
• Assignee: Solarpaint Ltd.
• OA Round: 3 (Non-Final)

Office Action

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 .

Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 March 2026 has been entered.

Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application PCT/IL2019/051416 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically the recited application fails to provide an enabling disclosure or any disclosure for the entire scope of the limitations of dependent claims 3, and 6-19.
Therefore, the recited Applications PCT/IL2019/051416 does not provide an enabling disclosure of the entire scope of the subject matter of claims 3, and 6-19 and as such these claims are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
As recited in MPEP 201.11:Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application; In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Van Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136, 173 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1972); and Chromalloy American Corp. v. Alloy Surfaces Co., Inc., 339 F. Supp. 859, 874, 173 USPQ 295, 306 (D. Del. 1972).

Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-19, 24 and 26 as set forth in applicant’s response filed 26 March 2026. Claims 4, 20-23, and 25 are cancelled.
Upon further search and consideration of applicant’s newly amended claims, new prior art was uncovered and the further prior art rejections of record are updated in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims to show where the limitations are taught, or are otherwise maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks where applicable are addressed below.

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.

The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331), and further in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) and further in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in further view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755).

Regarding claim 1 Carnation discloses a device comprising:
a self-floating, rollable, flexible, photovoltaic article, that is formed of a plurality of flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells that are inter-connected as a generally planar array ([0015]-[0019], Figs. 1, 2A-2D, 4A-4D see: flexible rollable (roller 14) pool cover 13 with a plurality of photovoltaic cells 21, 22, 23 or 27-30 or 33-35);
wherein each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells has (I) a sunny-side surface that is configured to absorb light, and (II) a bottom-side surface that is opposite to said sunny-side surface and is not necessarily configured to absorb light (paras [0016]-[0019]);
wherein each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells is configured to generate electric current from light via the photovoltaic effect (paras [0016]-[0019]);
wherein an overall Specific Weight of the entirety of said photovoltaic article is smaller than 1.00 ([0015], [0024] Figs. 1 and 4A-4D see: the pool cover 13 with photovoltaic cells floats atop a water body 12 and thus possesses a Specific Weight smaller than 1.00).
Carnation does not explicitly disclose wherein each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically resilient solar cells is formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending craters arranged in rows and columns, that uniformly penetrate upwardly from the dark-side surface towards the sunny-side surface but do not reach said sunny-side surface; wherein said non-transcending craters penetrate upwardly into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer, and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions without fully dividing said semiconductor wafer; wherein each sub-region has a surface area or a footprint area, measured at the sunny-side surface of the solar cell, in a range of 0.1 to 500 square-millimeters; wherein said plurality of non-transcending craters and said plurality of miniature sub-regions causes said solar cell to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation; wherein said non-transcending craters store therein a filler material, which provides mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and shock dissipation to each of said solar cells.
Shibasaki discloses a solar cell (solar cell B) formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending craters, that penetrate upwardly from the dark-side surface towards the sunny-side surface but do not reach said sunny-side surface ([0046], [0053]-[0054], Figs. 4-5 see: second solar cell B with single crystal silicon layers 201 of a single substrate separated by device isolation regions 207 cut into the backside of solar cell B but not extending through the entire cell); wherein said non-transcending craters penetrate upwardly into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer ([0064], [0067] see in example 2 device isolation regions 207 cut into the backside of solar cell B extend 180 μm into a 200 μm thick single crystal silicon layer and thus penetrate 90 percent a height of the silicon layer), and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions without fully dividing said semiconductor wafer ([0046], [0053]-[0054], Figs. 4-5 see: second solar cell B segmented into single crystal silicon layers 201 connected in series); wherein each sub-region has a surface area or a footprint area ([0044], Fig. 4-5).
Furthermore, Nishi teaches a solar cell formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of uniform non-transcending craters arranged in rows and columns segmenting said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions (Nishi, Abstract, [0007]-[0009], [0011] Figs. 2-3 and 5 see: silicon semiconductor substrate 1 divided into sub regions by uniform non-transcending nicks/notches 5 where Fig. 5 shows notches extending in rows and columns) which can provide said solar cell to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1 and thus improve mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation).
Carnation, Nishi and Shibasaki are combinable as they are directed to the field of solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Shibasaki such that each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically resilient solar cells of Carnation is formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending craters, that penetrate upwardly from the dark-side surface towards the sunny-side surface but do not reach said sunny-side surface as in Shibasaki ([0046], [0053]-[0054], Figs. 4-5 see: second solar cell B with single crystal silicon layers 201 of a single substrate separated by device isolation regions 207 cut into the backside of solar cell B but not extending through the entire cell); wherein said non-transcending craters penetrate upwardly into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer as in Shibasaki ([0064], [0067] see in example 2 device isolation regions 207 cut into the backside of solar cell B extend 180 μm into a 200 μm thick single crystal silicon layer and thus penetrate 90 percent a height of the silicon layer), and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions without fully dividing said semiconductor wafer as in Shibasaki ([0046], [0053]-[0054], Figs. 4-5 see: second solar cell B segmented into single crystal silicon layers 201 connected in series) and further are provided such that said plurality of non-transcending craters uniformly penetrate the substrate and are arranged in rows and columns and said plurality of miniature sub-regions causes said solar cell to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation as in Nishi (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], [0011] Figs. 2-3 and 5 see: nicks/notches 5 extending in rows and columns (Fig. 5) at a uniform depth (Fig. 3) allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1 and thus improve mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation) as Shibasaki teaches these isolation regions (non-transcending craters) allow the cell to be divided into series connected regions to increase cell voltage (Shibasaki, Abstract, [0045]) and Nishi further teaches such notches (non-transcending craters) can provide the solar cell with increased flexibility allowing it to conform to curved surfaces and substrates (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1).
Regarding the claim 1 limitation “where each sub-region has a surface area or a footprint area measured at the sunny-side surface of the solar cell, in a range of 0.1 to 500 square-millimeters”, Nishi further illustrates in Fig. 5 silicon substrate divided into ~45 sub-regions and is rectangular in size and approximately 12cm (para [0007]) which for a 12cmx12cm substrate gives sub-regions of approximately 3.2cm2 (320mm2) in surface area.
In the alternative where it’s not clear that Nishi or Shibasaki explicitly discloses where each sub-region has a surface area or a footprint area measured at the sunny-side surface of the solar cell, in a range of 0.1 to 500 square-millimeters, as Nishi shows increasing the number of notches/nick increases the degree of flexibility of the solar cell but increases the number of sub-regions and while decreasing the surface area of each sub-region (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009] Figs. 1, and 3-5) which lowers the current generated by the solar cell as taught by Shibasaki (para, [0045]).
Thus as the current generated by the solar cell and degree of flexibility of the solar cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said surface area or footprint of each sub-region, with said current generated by the solar cell increasing and degree of flexibility of the solar cell decreasing as the surface area or footprint of each sub-region increases, the precise surface area or footprint of each sub-region would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed surface area or footprint of each sub-region cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the surface area or footprint of each sub-region in the apparatus of modified Carnation to obtain the desired balance between current generated by the solar cell and degree of flexibility of the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Further Shibasaki discloses said non-transcending craters store therein a filler material ([0053] see: the cur regions are filled with an insulator), but does not explicitly disclose said filler provides mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and shock dissipation to each of said solar cells.
CHU further teaches such grooved semiconductor wafers can further include an organic or inorganic filler material with air gap voids that provide a damper effect to absorb and dissipate vibration shock waves ([0098], [0110]-[0111], [0118], [0120] Figs. 7B and 9B see: semiconductor unit 11 with gap regions B filled with organic or inorganic flowable material 16 including voids or air gaps 17). Chu further teaches this can be applied to flexible solar cells (para [0122]).
CHU and modified Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of flexible solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Carnation such that the non-transcending craters of the flexible solar cell further include an organic or inorganic filler material with air gap voids as in CHU (Figs. 7B and 9B) as CHU teaches this allows the grooves/gaps with filler material and voids to provide a damper effect to absorb and dissipate vibration shock waves (CHU, [0098], [0110]-[0111], [0118], [0120] Figs. 7B and 9B see: semiconductor unit 11 with gap regions B filled with organic or inorganic flowable material 16 including voids or air gaps 17).

Regarding claim 2 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 1, and Carnation discloses wherein the device is capable of autonomously floating on water, without requiring to be mounted onto a raft or boat or detachable floatation device, due to said flexible and rollable solar cells being connected to one or more self-buoyant low-density rollable and flexible floating-capability layers ([0015], [0024] Figs. 1 and 2A-2D see: device is a rollable pool cover 13 with integral photovoltaic cells floating atop a water body 12).

Regarding claim 19 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the device is an autonomously-floating electricity-generating swimming pool cover ([0015], [0024] Figs. 1 and 4A-4D see: device is a pool cover 13 with photovoltaic cells floating atop a water body 12).

Regarding claim 24 Carnation discloses a method of producing a self-floating flexible and rollable photovoltaic article, the method comprising:
producing a plurality of flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells that are inter-connected as an array ([0015]-[0019], Figs. 1, 2A-2D, 4A-4D see: providing a plurality of photovoltaic cells 21, 22, 23 or 27-30 or 33-35);
wherein each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells has (I) a sunny-side surface that is configured to absorb light, and (II) a bottom-side surface that is opposite to said sunny-side surface and is not necessarily configured to absorb light ([0015]-[0019], Figs. 1, 2A-2D, 4A-4D see: providing a plurality of photovoltaic cells 21, 22, 23 or 27-30 or 33-35 each with a light incident side and a back side);
wherein each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells is configured to generate electric current from light via a photovoltaic effect ([0015]-[0019], Figs. 1, 2A-2D, 4A-4D see: providing a plurality of photovoltaic cells 21, 22, 23 or 27-30 or 33-35 configured to generate power);
wherein an overall Specific Weight of the entirety of said self-floating flexible and rollable photovoltaic article is smaller than 1.00 ([0015], [0024] Figs. 1 and 4A-4D see: the pool cover 13 with photovoltaic cells floats atop a water body 12 and thus possesses a Specific Weight smaller than 1.00).
Carnation does not explicitly disclose wherein each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically resilient solar cells is formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending craters, that penetrate upwardly from the dark-side surface towards the sunny-side surface but do not reach said sunny-side surface; wherein said non-transcending craters penetrate upwardly into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer, and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions; wherein each sub-region has a surface area or a footprint area, measured at the sunny-side surface of the solar cell, in a range of 0.1 to 500 square-millimeters; wherein said plurality of non-transcending craters and said plurality of miniature sub-regions causes said solar cell to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation; wherein said non-transcending craters store therein a filler material, which provides mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and shock dissipation to each of said solar cells.
Shibasaki discloses a solar cell (solar cell B) formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending craters, that penetrate upwardly from the dark-side surface towards the sunny-side surface but do not reach said sunny-side surface ([0046], [0053]-[0054], Figs. 4-5 see: second solar cell B with single crystal silicon layers 201 of a single substrate separated by device isolation regions 207 cut into the backside of solar cell B but not extending through the entire cell); wherein said non-transcending craters penetrate upwardly into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer ([0064], [0067] see in example 2 device isolation regions 207 cut into the backside of solar cell B extend 180 μm into a 200 μm thick single crystal silicon layer and thus penetrate 90 percent a height of the silicon layer), and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions ([0046], [0053]-[0054], Figs. 4-5 see: second solar cell B segmented into single crystal silicon layers 201 connected in series); wherein each sub-region has a surface area or a footprint area ([0044], Fig. 4-5).
Furthermore, Nishi teaches a solar cell formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending craters segmenting said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions (Nishi, Abstract, [0007]-[0009], Figs. 1-5 see: silicon semiconductor substrate 1 divided into sub regions by non-transcending nicks/notches 5) which can provide said solar cell to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1 and thus improve mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation).
Carnation, Nishi and Shibasaki are combinable as they are directed to the field of solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Shibasaki such that each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically resilient solar cells of Carnation is formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending craters, that penetrate upwardly from the dark-side surface towards the sunny-side surface but do not reach said sunny-side surface as in Shibasaki ([0046], [0053]-[0054], Figs. 4-5 see: second solar cell B with single crystal silicon layers 201 of a single substrate separated by device isolation regions 207 cut into the backside of solar cell B but not extending through the entire cell); wherein said non-transcending craters penetrate upwardly into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer as in Shibasaki ([0064], [0067] see in example 2 device isolation regions 207 cut into the backside of solar cell B extend 180 μm into a 200 μm thick single crystal silicon layer and thus penetrate 90 percent a height of the silicon layer), and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions as in Shibasaki ([0046], [0053]-[0054], Figs. 4-5 see: second solar cell B segmented into single crystal silicon layers 201 connected in series) and further are provided such that said plurality of non-transcending craters and said plurality of miniature sub-regions causes said solar cell to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation as in Nishi (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1 and thus improve mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation) as Shibasaki teaches these isolation regions (non-transcending craters) allow the cell to be divided into series connected regions to increase cell voltage (Shibasaki, Abstract, [0045]) and Nishi further teaches such notches (non-transcending craters) can provide the solar cell with increased flexibility allowing it to conform to curved surfaces and substrates (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1).
Regarding the claim 24 limitation “where each sub-region has a surface area or a footprint area measured at the sunny-side surface of the solar cell, in a range of 0.1 to 500 square-millimeters”, Nishi further illustrates in Fig. 5 silicon substrate divided into ~45 sub-regions and is rectangular in size and approximately 12cm (para [0007]) which for a 12cmx12cm substrate gives sub-regions of approximately 3.2cm2 (320mm2) in surface area.
In the alternative where it’s not clear that Nishi or Shibasaki explicitly discloses where each sub-region has a surface area or a footprint area measured at the sunny-side surface of the solar cell, in a range of 0.1 to 500 square-millimeters, as Nishi shows increasing the number of notches/nick increases the degree of flexibility of the solar cell but increases the number of sub-regions and while decreasing the surface area of each sub-region (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009] Figs. 1, and 3-5) which lowers the current generated by the solar cell as taught by Shibasaki (para, [0045]).
Thus as the current generated by the solar cell and degree of flexibility of the solar cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said surface area or footprint of each sub-region, with said current generated by the solar cell increasing and degree of flexibility of the solar cell decreasing as the surface area or footprint of each sub-region increases, the precise surface area or footprint of each sub-region would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed surface area or footprint of each sub-region cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the surface area or footprint of each sub-region in the apparatus of modified Carnation to obtain the desired balance between current generated by the solar cell and degree of flexibility of the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Further Shibasaki discloses said non-transcending craters store therein a filler material ([0053] see: the cur regions are filled with an insulator), but does not explicitly disclose said filler provides mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and shock dissipation to each of said solar cells.
However, CHU further teaches such grooved semiconductor wafers can further include an organic or inorganic filler material with air gap voids that provide a damper effect to absorb and dissipate vibration shock waves ([0098], [0110]-[0111], [0118], [0120] Figs. 7B and 9B see: semiconductor unit 11 with gap regions B filled with organic or inorganic flowable material 16 including voids or air gaps 17). Chu further teaches this can be applied to flexible solar cells (para [0122]).
CHU and modified Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of flexible solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of modified Carnation such that the non-transcending craters of the flexible solar cell further include an organic or inorganic filler material with air gap voids as in CHU (Figs. 7B and 9B) as CHU teaches this allows the grooves/gaps with filler material and voids to provide a damper effect to absorb and dissipate vibration shock waves (CHU, [0098], [0110]-[0111], [0118], [0120] Figs. 7B and 9B see: semiconductor unit 11 with gap regions B filled with organic or inorganic flowable material 16 including voids or air gaps 17).

Claims 3, 7, and 14 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331) in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755) as applied to claims 1-2, 19, and 24 above, and further in view of Yekutiely et al (US 2010/0065106).

Regarding claim 3 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2,
wherein the generally planar array of flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells, is at least one of:
(i) non-detachably and integrally encapsulated within a multi-layer polymeric buoyancy-providing encapsulation structure that provides self-buoyancy property to the entirety of said photovoltaic article ([0017]-[0019] Fig. 2D see: membrane 31 including protective sheathing 32 surrounding photovoltaic cells 33, 34, 35 thus considered integrally encapsulated and non-detachably connected),
(ii) non-detachably and integrally attached to one or more low-density buoyancy-providing layers that provide self-buoyancy property to the entirety of said photovoltaic article ([0017]-[0019] Fig. 2B-2C see: composite 24 of a membrane 20 of continuous photovoltaic cells 21, 22, 23, etc., bonded to membrane 25 or see membrane 26 formed of support membrane 25 including photovoltaic cells 27-30 thus considered non-detachably and integrally attached through bonding),
(iii) non-detachably and integrally contains therein one or more low-density buoyancy-providing layers that provide self-buoyancy property to the entirety of said photovoltaic article ([0017]-[0019] Fig. 2A see: single sheet of flexible photovoltaic material made up of individual cells continuously arranged thereon is shown as membrane 20 having cells 21, 22, 23, etc., situated therein acting as a pool cover);
but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the layers of the photovoltaic article, that is an integral and non-removable part of the photovoltaic article, is made of low-density rollable and flexible foamed polymer that provides self-buoyancy property to the entirety of said photovoltaic article.
Yekutiely teaches a floating water integrated photovoltaic article comprising a low-density rollable and flexible foamed polymer that provides self-buoyancy property to the entirety of said photovoltaic article and is an integral and non-removable part of the photovoltaic article (Yekutiely, [0014], [0021]-[0022], [0025], [0029]-[0030], Fig. 1 see: WIPV module 10 comprising a PV device (cell) 12 bonded with a material 20 of foam such as foam rubber with adhesive interface 16).
Yekutiely and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with flexible floating photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Yekutiely such that the at least one of the layers of the photovoltaic article, that is an integral and non-removable part of the photovoltaic article of Carnation, is made of low-density rollable and flexible foamed polymer that provides self-buoyancy property to the entirety of said photovoltaic article as in Yekutiely (Yekutiely, [0014], [0021]-[0022], [0025], [0029]-[0030], Fig. 1 see: WIPV module 10 comprising a PV device (cell) 12 bonded with a material 20 of foam such as foam rubber with adhesive interface 16) for the express purpose of providing a buoyancy property to the device as taught by Yekutiely (para [0030]).

Regarding claim 7 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more self-buoyant low-density rollable and flexible floating-capability layers comprise at least a layer of foamed polymer that is non-detachably bonded to a bottom-surface of the bottom-side surface of said solar cells.
Yekutiely teaches a floating water integrated photovoltaic article comprising a layer of foamed polymer that is non-detachably bonded to a bottom-surface of the bottom-side surface of a solar cell (Yekutiely, [0014], [0021]-[0022], [0025], [0029]-[0030], Fig. 1 see: WIPV module 10 comprising a PV device (cell) 12 bonded with a material 20 of foam such as foam rubber with adhesive interface 16).
Yekutiely and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with flexible floating photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Yekutiely such that the one or more self-buoyant low-density rollable and flexible floating-capability layers of Carnation comprise at least a layer of foamed polymer that is non-detachably bonded to a bottom-surface of the bottom-side surface of said solar cells as in Yekutiely (Yekutiely, [0014], [0021]-[0022], [0025], [0029]-[0030], Fig. 1 see: WIPV module 10 comprising a PV device (cell) 12 bonded with a material 20 of foam such as foam rubber with adhesive interface 16) for the express purpose of providing a buoyancy property to the device as taught by Yekutiely (para [0030]).

Regarding claim 14 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of a surface of the device is coated with a material that reduces or prevents formation of algae.
Yekutiely teaches a floating water integrated photovoltaic article wherein at least a portion of a surface of the device is coated with a material that reduces or prevents formation of algae (Yekutiely, [0014], [0021]-[0022], [0025], [0029]-[0030], Fig. 1 see: WIPV module 10 comprising a PV device (cell) 12 bonded to geomembrane 14 with an adhesive interface 16 which has excellent resistance to fungus/mildew/algae growth from developing on PV device 12).
Yekutiely and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with flexible floating photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Yekutiely such that a portion of a surface of the device of Carnation is coated with a material that reduces or prevents formation of algae as in Yekutiely ([0014], [0021]-[0022], [0025], [0029]-[0030], Fig. 1 see: WIPV module 10 comprising a PV device (cell) 12 bonded to geomembrane 14 with an adhesive interface 16 which has excellent resistance to fungus/mildew/algae growth from developing on PV device 12) for the express purpose of resisting fungus/mildew/algae growth on the device of Carnation as taught by Yekutiely.

Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331) in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755) as applied to claims 1-2, 19, and 24 above, and further in view of Haarburger’721 (US 2014/0290721).

Regarding claim 5 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more self-buoyant low-density rollable and flexible floating-capability layers comprise at least a layer of foamed polymer having closed-cell pores.
Haarburger’721 discloses a floating solar module apparatus having a layer of foamed polymer having closed-cell pores (Haarburger’721, [0018] and claim 4 Fig. 1 see: carrier sheet formed of closed pore foamed plastic).
Haarburger’721 and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with floating photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Haarburger’721 such that the one or more self-buoyant low-density rollable and flexible floating-capability layers of Carnation comprises at least a layer of foamed polymer having closed-cell pores as in Haarburger’721 ([0018] and claim 4 Fig. 1 see: carrier sheet formed of closed pore foamed plastic) for the express purpose of providing a buoyancy property to the device.

Regarding claim 9 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not disclose the device further comprising: a central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached and is sandwiched between (i) a top side of the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer, and (ii) a bottom side of the bottom-side surface of said solar cells; wherein the central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device.
Haarburger’721 discloses a floating solar module apparatus having a central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached and is sandwiched between (i) a top side of the floating-capability layer, and (ii) a bottom side of the bottom-side surface of the solar cells (Haarburger’721, [0017], [0021] Fig. 1 see: at least one layer of plastic is placed between the photovoltaic cells and the carrier sheet of a stretchable form to compensate for tensile forces between the carrier sheet and the photovoltaic cells); wherein the central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device (Haarburger’721, [0021] see: the layer compensates for tensile forces between the carrier sheet and the photovoltaic cells and thus also imparts mechanical support and integrity to the device).
Haarburger’721 and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with floating photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Haarburger’721 such that the device of Carnation further comprises a central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible as taught by Haarburger’721, and which is attached and is sandwiched between (i) a top side of the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer of Carnation, and (ii) a bottom side of the bottom-side surface of said solar cells of Carnation as in Haarburger’721 (Haarburger’721, [0017], [0021] Fig. 1 see: at least one layer of plastic is placed between the photovoltaic cells and the carrier sheet of a stretchable form to compensate for tensile forces between the carrier sheet and the photovoltaic cells); Haarburger’721 teaches wherein the central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device and prevents forces from being transferred to the photovoltaic cells and embedded leads (Haarburger’721, [0021] see: the layer compensates for tensile forces between the carrier sheet and the photovoltaic cells and thus also imparts mechanical support and integrity to the device).

Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331) in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755) as applied to claims 1-2, 19, and 24 above, and further in view of Burmeister et al (US 2009/0289381).

Regarding claim 6 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more self-buoyant low-density rollable and flexible floating-capability layers comprises at least a layer of foamed polymer, wherein a top-side surface of said foamed polymer is a solidified previously-molten surface of foamed polymer that had been molten and brought into contact with the dark-side surface of said solar cells and that integrally attached to the bottom-side surface of said solar cells; wherein a bottom-side side surface of said solar cells, and the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer which is formed of foamed polymer, are integrally and mechanically attached to each other via said solidified previously-molten surface of foamed polymer.
Burmeister teaches where solar cells are integrally attached or embedded in foamed support layers (Burmeister, Abstract, [0090], [0118], [0124]-[0126], Figs. 1-2 see: solar cells 3 embedded in foamed (after activation of foaming agent) second polymer layer 4) where Burmeister notes this foam is better able to compensate thermal stresses and provide better sealing for sensitive goods against dust and liquid media in a layer with a density less than 900 kg/m3 (Burmeister, Abstract, [0090], [0124]-[0126]).
Burmeister and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Burmeister such that the article of Carnation comprises a layer of foamed polymer as in Burmeister where the solar cells of Carnation are embedded in said foamed polymer as in Burmeister (Burmeister, Abstract, [0090], [0118], [0124]-[0126], Figs. 1-2 see: solar cells 3 embedded in foamed (after activation of foaming agent) second polymer layer 4) as Burmeister notes this foam is better able to compensate thermal stresses and provide better sealing for sensitive goods against dust and liquid media in a layer with a density less than 900 kg/m3 (Burmeister, Abstract, [0090], [0124]-[0126]) and thus would be suitable for providing a buoyant or floating layer that seals the solar cells of Carnation from water.
Furthermore, the claim 6 recitations “wherein a top-side surface of said foamed polymer is a solidified previously-molten surface of foamed polymer that had been molten and brought into contact with the dark-side surface of said solar cells and that integrally attached to the bottom-side surface of said solar cells; wherein a bottom-side side surface of said solar cells, and the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer which is formed of foamed polymer, are integrally and mechanically attached to each other via said solidified previously-molten surface of foamed polymer” are directed to a method of manufacturing the claimed device. The examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
The device of Carnation as modified Burmeister is considered to meet all of the structural limitations of claim 6 as the bottom surfaces of the solar cells are embedded in a top surface of the solidified foamed polymer.

Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331) in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755) as applied to claims 1-2, 19, and 24 above, and further in view of Van De Ven (WO 2021/191403A1, reference made to US 2023/0019361 as English translation).

Regarding claim 8 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not disclose the device further comprising: a bottom-side tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached to a bottom side of the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer; wherein the bottom-side tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device.
Van De Ven teaches a solar cell module coupled to a float where a bottom side support layer of the float comprises a bottom-side tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached to a bottom side of the floating-capability layer (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0007], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 formed of a low-density plastic that is stretchable and compressible and thus able to bear tension); wherein the bottom-side tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0007], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 is stretchable and compressible in response to wave action to prevent damage to the solar cells and thus also provides mechanical support and integrity).
Van De Ven and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Van De Ven such that the device of Carnation further comprises a bottom-side tension bearing layer as in Van De Ven (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0007], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 formed of a low-density plastic that is stretchable and compressible and thus able to bear tension), which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached to a bottom side of the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer of Carnation as Van De Ven teaches this rear tensioning layer provides the device with a way to stretch and compress in response to wave action to prevent damage to the solar cells (Van De Ven, [0007]). Furthermore, such a tensioning member as recited by Van De Ven is thus also fully capable of providing mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0007], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 is stretchable and compressible in response to wave action to prevent damage to the solar cells and thus also provides mechanical support and integrity).

Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331) in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755) as applied to claims 1-2, 19, and 24 above, and further in view of Van De Ven (WO 2021/191403A1, reference made to US 2023/0019361 as English translation) and further in view of Haarburger’721 (US 2014/0290721).

Regarding claim 10 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: (I) a bottom-side tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached to a bottom side of the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer; wherein the bottom-side tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device; and also, (II) a central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached and is sandwiched between (i) a top side of the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer, and (ii) a bottom side of the bottom-side surface of said solar cells; wherein the central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device.
Van De Ven teaches a solar cell module coupled to a float where a bottom side support layer of the float comprises a bottom-side tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached to a bottom side of the floating-capability layer (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0007], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 formed of a low-density plastic that is stretchable and compressible and thus able to bear tension); wherein the bottom-side tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0007], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 is stretchable and compressible in response to wave action to prevent damage to the solar cells and thus also provides mechanical support and integrity).
Van De Ven and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Van De Ven such that the device of Carnation further comprises a bottom-side tension bearing layer as in Van De Ven (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0007], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 formed of a low-density plastic that is stretchable and compressible and thus able to bear tension), which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached to a bottom side of the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer of Carnation as Van De Ven teaches this rear tensioning layer provides the device with a way to stretch and compress in response to wave action to prevent damage to the solar cells (Van De Ven, [0007]). Furthermore, such a tensioning member as recited by Van De Ven is thus also fully capable of providing mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0007], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 is stretchable and compressible in response to wave action to prevent damage to the solar cells and thus also provides mechanical support and integrity).
Haarburger’721 discloses a floating solar module apparatus having a central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible, and which is attached and is sandwiched between (i) a top side of the floating-capability layer, and (ii) a bottom side of the bottom-side surface of the solar cells (Haarburger’721, [0017], [0021] Fig. 1 see: at least one layer of plastic is placed between the photovoltaic cells and the carrier sheet of a stretchable form to compensate for tensile forces between the carrier sheet and the photovoltaic cells); wherein the central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device (Haarburger’721, [0021] see: the layer compensates for tensile forces between the carrier sheet and the photovoltaic cells and thus also imparts mechanical support and integrity to the device).
Haarburger’721 and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with floating photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Haarburger’721 such that the device of Carnation further comprises a central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer, which is rollable and flexible as taught by Haarburger’721, and which is attached and is sandwiched between (i) a top side of the rollable and flexible floating-capability layer of Carnation, and (ii) a bottom side of the bottom-side surface of said solar cells of Carnation as in Haarburger’721 (Haarburger’721, [0017], [0021] Fig. 1 see: at least one layer of plastic is placed between the photovoltaic cells and the carrier sheet of a stretchable form to compensate for tensile forces between the carrier sheet and the photovoltaic cells); Haarburger’721 teaches wherein the central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer provides mechanical support and tension bearing and mechanical integrity to said device and prevents forces from being transferred to the photovoltaic cells and embedded leads (Haarburger’721, [0021] see: the layer compensates for tensile forces between the carrier sheet and the photovoltaic cells and thus also imparts mechanical support and integrity to the device).

Regarding claim 11 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 10, and Van De Ven teaches wherein at least one of (i) the bottom-side tension bearing layer, and (ii) the central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer, is a woven fabric that is formed of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of: polypropylene (PP), thermoplastic polymer(s), polyamide, polyimide, aramid, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), glass (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 of a material which is woven and can be a polyurethane (thermoplastic polymer)).

Regarding claim 12 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 10, and Van De Ven teaches wherein at least one of (i) the bottom-side tension bearing layer, and (ii) the central, sandwiched, tension bearing layer, is a non-woven fabric that is formed of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of: polypropylene (PP), thermoplastic polymer(s), polyamide, polyimide, aramid, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), glass (Van De Ven, [0034]-[0036], Fig. 2 see: float 26 having lower layer 25 of a material which is non-woven and can be a polyurethane (thermoplastic polymer)).

Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331) in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755) as applied to claims 1-2, 19, and 24 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 2011/0005583).

Regarding claim 13 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of a top surface of the device is coated with a bird repellant or an animal repellant.
Thomas discloses a solar cell array where a top surface of the device is coated with a bird repellant or an animal repellant (Thomas, [0039], [0042], Fig. 1 see: a plurality of bird repellant devices 110 are mounted to prevent birds from landing on, or nesting on, top horizontal beam 104).
Thomas and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Thomas such that at least a portion of a top surface of the device of Carnation is coated with a bird repellant or an animal repellant as in Thomas (Thomas, [0039], [0042], Fig. 1 see: a plurality of bird repellant devices 110 are mounted to prevent birds from landing on, or nesting on, top horizontal beam 104) for the express purpose of preventing birds from landing on or nesting on the device of Carnation as in Thomas.

Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331) in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755) as applied to claims 1-2, 19, and 24 above, and further in view of Podlowski et al (DE 102012010859 A1, reference made to attached English machine translation).

Regarding claim 15 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of a bottom surface of the device is coated with a non-stick material that reduces or prevents attachment of objects to a bottom side of the device.
Podlowski teaches a floating solar cell device wherein at least a portion of a bottom surface of the device is coated with a non-stick material that reduces or prevents attachment of objects to a bottom side of the device (Podlowski, Figs. 1 and 3 Abstract, see top of page 3 of translation see: resistance surface 08 having a material that is made water resistant and have a low-tendency to attach fouling organisms).
Podlowski and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with floating photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Podlowski such that at least a portion of a bottom surface of the device of Carnation is coated with a non-stick material that reduces or prevents attachment of objects to a bottom side of the device as in Podlowski (Podlowski, Figs. 1 and 3 Abstract, see top of page 3 of translation see: resistance surface 08 having a material that is made water resistant and have a low-tendency to attach fouling organisms) for the express purpose or preventing or resisting fouling of said surface in Carnation.

Claim 16-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331) in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755) as applied to claims 1-2, 19, and 24 above, and further in view of Fortmann (US 2011/0100423).

Regarding claim 16 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of a top surface of the device is coated with translucent paint, which provides a camouflage to said device relative to its surrounding, and also enables passage of at least 75% of light through said translucent paint.
Fortmann discloses a solar cell device where at least a portion of a top surface of the device is coated with translucent paint, which provides a camouflage to said device relative to its surrounding (Fortmann, [0011], [0077]-[0078], [0090], Fig. 8 see: coating of scattering layer 820 having a mixture of mall-grained materials in for example a polymer base that are engineered to scatter light or impart a color to visually camouflage the panel).
Fortmann and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Fortmann such that at least a portion of a top surface of the device of Carnation is coated with translucent paint, which provides a camouflage to said device relative to its surrounding as in Fortmann (Fortmann, [0011], [0077]-[0078], [0090], Fig. 8 see: coating of scattering layer 820 having a mixture of mall-grained materials in for example a polymer base that are engineered to scatter light or impart a color to visually camouflage the panel) for the express purpose of visually camouflaging the panel in applications where camouflage is more important than panel or module efficiency as taught by Fortmann.
Furthermore although Fortmann is silent to the specific amount of light allowed to pass through the translucent paint and thus modified Carnation is silent to where said translucent paint enables passage of at least 75% of light, as noted above, Carnation teaches panel efficiency and panel visibility are variables that can be modified by varying the passage of through the translucent paint (Fortmann, [0077]-[0078], [0090]).
For that reason, the passage of through the translucent paint, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the passage of through the translucent paint cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the passage of through the translucent paint in the device of modified Carnation to obtain the desired panel efficiency and panel visibility (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).

Regarding claim 17 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of a top surface of the device is coated with translucent paint or coating or layer, which reduces an Infra-Red (IR) signature of the device.
Fortmann discloses a solar cell device where at least a portion of a top surface of the device is coated with translucent paint or coating or layer, which reduces an Infra-Red (IR) signature of the device (Fortmann, [0086], Fig. 8 see: device 800 having a scattering layer 820 with TiO2 materials for selectively rejecting infrared radiation to reduce heating of the photosensitive devices 840 and thereby decreasing the infrared signature of the panel or module).
Fortmann and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Fortmann such that at least a portion of a top surface of the device of Carnation is coated with translucent paint or coating or layer, which reduces an Infra-Red (IR) signature of the device as in Fortmann
(Fortmann, [0086], Fig. 8 see: device 800 having a scattering layer 820 with TiO2 materials for selectively rejecting infrared radiation to reduce heating of the photosensitive devices 840 and thereby decreasing the infrared signature of the panel or module) for the express purpose of reducing the infrared signature of the device of Carnation and reducing the heating of the solar cells of Carnation as in Fortmann.

Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331) in view of Shibasaki et at (US 2018/0151771) in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755) as applied to claims 1-2, 19, and 24 above, and further in view of Julian et al (US 2018/0034408).

Regarding claim 18 modified Carnation discloses the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a wind-blocking element that surrounds at least a border frame of said device, and prevents wind from entering into a region of contact between the device and a body of water, and prevents wind from causing said device to fly away or to be dragged away.
Julian teaches a floating solar module device having a wind-blocking element that surrounds at least a border frame of said device, and prevents wind from entering into a region of contact between the device and a body of water, and prevents wind from causing said device to fly away or to be dragged away (Julian, [0025], [0033], [0038], Figs. 1 and 3B-3C see: edge protection member 300 having a wind barrier 310 which surrounds the PV array 301 and PV array connectors 325 and reduces an incidence of the wind getting under adjacent portions of the PV array and lifting those portions off the waterbody).
Julian and Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with floating photovoltaic articles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Julian such that the device of Carnation further comprises a wind-blocking element that surrounds at least a border frame of said device of Carnation, and prevents wind from entering into a region of contact between the device and a body of water, and prevents wind from causing said device to fly away or to be dragged away as in Julian (Julian, [0025], [0033], [0038], Figs. 1 and 3B-3C see: edge protection member 300 having a wind barrier 310 which surrounds the PV array 301 and PV array connectors 325 and reduces an incidence of the wind getting under adjacent portions of the PV array and lifting those portions off the waterbody) for the express purpose of preventing wind from getting under the device of Carnation and lifting if off a body of water.

Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnation (US 2010/0294331), and further in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in further view of CHU et al (US 2017/0365755)

Regarding claim 26 Carnation discloses a self-floating photovoltaic article, comprising:
a plurality of flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells that are inter-connected as an array ([0015]-[0019], Figs. 1, 2A-2D, 4A-4D see: providing a plurality of photovoltaic cells 21, 22, 23 or 27-30 or 33-35);
wherein each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells has (I) a sunny-side surface that is configured to absorb light, and (II) a bottom-side surface that is opposite to said sunny-side surface and is not necessarily configured to absorb light ([0015]-[0019], Figs. 1, 2A-2D, 4A-4D see: providing a plurality of photovoltaic cells 21, 22, 23 or 27-30 or 33-35 each with a light incident side and a back side);
wherein each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells is configured to generate electric current from light via a photovoltaic effect ([0015]-[0019], Figs. 1, 2A-2D, 4A-4D see: providing a plurality of photovoltaic cells 21, 22, 23 or 27-30 or 33-35 configured to generate power);
wherein an overall Specific Weight of an entirety of said self-floating photovoltaic article is smaller than 1.00 ([0015], [0024] Figs. 1 and 4A-4D see: the pool cover 13 with photovoltaic cells floats atop a water body 12 and thus possesses a Specific Weight smaller than 1.00).
Carnation does not explicitly disclose wherein each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically-resilient solar cells is formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending gaps, that penetrate from the sunny-side surface towards the dark-side surface but do not reach said dark-side surface; wherein said non-transcending gaps penetrate into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer, and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions; wherein said plurality of non-transcending gaps and said plurality of miniature sub-regions cause each of said solar cells to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation; wherein said non-transcending gaps store therein a filler material, which provides mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and shock dissipation to each of said solar cells.
Nishi teaches a solar cell formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending gaps, that penetrate from the sunny-side surface towards the dark-side surface but do not reach said dark-side surface; wherein said non-transcending gaps penetrate into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer, and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions (Nishi, Abstract, [0007]-[0009], [0011] Figs. 1-5 see: silicon semiconductor substrate 1 divided into sub regions by non-transcending nicks/notches 5 illustrated in Fig. 3 as between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of substrate 1); wherein said plurality of non-transcending gaps and said plurality of miniature sub-regions cause each of said solar cells to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], [0011] Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1 along two orthogonal axes (Fig. 5) and thus improve mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation).
Carnation and Nishi are combinable as they are directed to the field of flexible solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Carnation in view of Nishi such that each of said flexible and rollable and mechanically resilient solar cells of Carnation is formed of a single semiconductor wafer having a plurality of non-transcending gaps, that penetrate from the sunny-side surface towards the dark-side surface but do not reach said dark-side surface; wherein said non-transcending gaps penetrate into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer, and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of miniature sub-regions as in Nishi (Nishi, Abstract, [0007]-[0009], [0011] Figs. 1-5 see: silicon semiconductor substrate 1 divided into sub regions by non-transcending nicks/notches 5 illustrated in Fig. 3 as between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of substrate 1) and further are provided such that said plurality of non-transcending craters and said plurality of miniature sub-regions causes said solar cell to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation as in Nishi (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], [0011] Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1 along two orthogonal axes (Fig. 5) and thus improve mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation) as Nishi teaches such notches (non-transcending craters) can provide the solar cell with increased flexibility allowing it to conform to curved surfaces and substrates (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1).
Modified Carnation does not explicitly disclose said non-transcending craters store therein a filler material providing mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and shock dissipation to each of said solar cells.
However, CHU further teaches such grooved semiconductor wafers can further include an organic or inorganic filler material with air gap voids that provide a damper effect to absorb and dissipate vibration shock waves ([0098], [0110]-[0111], [0118], [0120] Figs. 7B and 9B see: semiconductor unit 11 with gap regions B filled with organic or inorganic flowable material 16 including voids or air gaps 17). Chu further teaches this can be applied to flexible solar cells (para [0122]).
CHU and modified Carnation are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of flexible solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Carnation such that the non-transcending craters of the flexible solar cell further include an organic or inorganic filler material with air gap voids as in CHU (Figs. 7B and 9B) as CHU teaches this allows the grooves/gaps with filler material and voids to provide a damper effect to absorb and dissipate vibration shock waves (CHU, [0098], [0110]-[0111], [0118], [0120] Figs. 7B and 9B see: semiconductor unit 11 with gap regions B filled with organic or inorganic flowable material 16 including voids or air gaps 17).
Furthermore, regarding the range of the depth of the non-transcending gaps, as the degree of flexibility of the semiconductor wafer is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said depth of the non-transcending gaps, with said degree of flexibility of the semiconductor wafer increasing as the depth of the non-transcending gaps increases, the depth of the non-transcending gaps would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed depth of the non-transcending gaps cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the depth of the non-transcending gaps in the apparatus of modified Carnation to obtain the desired balance degree of flexibility of the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the response filed 26 March 2026 regarding the prior art of Shibasaki that some of the isolation regions of Shibasaki would be understood to penetrate into 100 percent of a height of the cell. Applicant’s arguments to Shibasaki have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. The examiner disagrees that some of the isolation regions of Shibasaki would be understood to penetrate into 100 percent of a height of the cell the cited paragraphs of [0053]-[0054] and Figs. 4-5 are directed to an alternative embodiment of Shibasaki where the isolation regions do not fully penetrate the height of the cell, rather Shibasaki is showing how the depth of the isolation region can be used to adjust the open circuit voltage of the solar cell B. As recited in MPEP 2123:
II. NONPREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS CONSTITUTE PRIOR ART
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have “relatively acceptable dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility,” but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.” Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Applicant’s further arguments to Shibasaki are moot as they are directed to claim limitations Shibasaki is not specifically relied upon to teach.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the response filed 26 March 2026 regarding the prior art of Nishi that Nishi discloses cuts 5 only extending in one direction and that Nishi does not segment the wafer into discrete miniature regions as required by the claims. Applicant argues Nishi’s objective is to obtain a flexible crystalline solar cell while the present application requires structural features that provide mechanical resilience, mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation through the plurality of claimed craters.
Applicant’s arguments to Nishi have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. The examiner disagrees with applicant’s reading of Nishi, as Nishi at para [0011] and Fig. 5 explicitly discloses where the non-transcending nicks/notches 5 extend in rows and columns dividing the wafer 1 into discrete miniature regions as claimed and allowing bending along two orthogonal axes. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitations to the non-transcending craters providing said solar cell to have improved properties of mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation, Nishi at the Abstract, and paras [0006], [0009] and Fig. 3 discloses the nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1 and thus improve mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption and mechanical shock dissipation by nature of this increased flexibility. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Applicant’s further arguments to the limitations of the filler material are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of the prior art of CHU.
Further regarding applicant’s arguments that the prior art do not teach a photovoltaic articles with the claimed buoyancy, the prior art of Carnation teaches this limitation (Carnation [0015], [0024] Figs. 1 and 4A-4D see: the pool cover 13 with photovoltaic cells floats atop a water body 12 and thus possesses a Specific Weight smaller than 1.00) as well as the photovoltaic article being flexible but Carnation does not disclose the particular claim limitations to the cells formed from flexible semiconductor wafers. However, as recited above the prior art of Nishi teaches it is known to provide semiconductor wafers with non-transcending grooves to provide solar cells formed from crystalline semiconductor wafers with flexibility to combine the advantages of flexible solar cells with the higher efficiency of crystalline solar cells compared to typical flexible cells formed of amorphous silicon materials and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the prior art of Carnation and Nishi to employ such flexible crystalline solar cells for the combined benefits of higher efficiency compared to conventional flexible solar cells while maintaining flexibility. Furthermore, as recited in MPEP 2144:
IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).

In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-19, 24 and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.

ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726

/ANDREW J GOLDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726

Prosecution Timeline

• Sep 26, 2023: Application Filed
• May 14, 2025: Non-Final Rejection — §103
• Nov 12, 2025: Response Filed
• Nov 26, 2025: Final Rejection — §103
• Mar 26, 2026: Request for Continued Examination
• Mar 27, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action
• Apr 03, 2026: Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)