Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/529,155

FLOATING SOLAR PLANT, AS WELL AS A METHOD FOR MAINTAINING SUCH A SOLAR PLANT

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 05, 2023
Examiner
VENNE, DANIEL V
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ciel Et Terre International
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
1162 granted / 1635 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1686
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
31.1%
-8.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
§112
43.8%
+3.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1635 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): 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. 4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention. 5. The claimed features “the rails”, “the panels”, “the different rows”, “the circulation”, “the transfer”, “the other pair”, “the level”, “said extension”, “the row”, “the direct current”, “the network”, “the invertor device”, “the maintenance carriage”, “the replacement” and “the inspection” lack sufficient antecedent basis as recited in the claims (independent claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims). 6. The use of the pronoun “it” in the claims does not make clear the feature referred to. Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “the other pair”, and the claim also recites “in particular the second pair” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In claim 5, dependency recited as “according to claims 4” is unclear. In claim 5, the phrase “and d wherein” is unclear. Allowable Subject Matter As best understood by the examiner, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. As best understood by the examiner, claims 2-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 13. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The prior art references cited by the examiner disclose various floating solar plants/facilities. 14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 15. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Daniel V Venne/ Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615 03/09/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600446
DEVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR MOUNTING A TRANSDUCER WITHIN A WATERCRAFT HULL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595030
HULL-MOUNTED INSTALLATION CONVERSION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595034
Variable Angle Rudder Lift Actuation Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589834
DEVICE FOR CONNECTING TWO PARTS OF A HULL OF A SHIP, AND HULL OF A SHIP COMPRISING SUCH A DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583561
SAILING BOAT WITH AN AUXILIARY HYDRODYNAMIC SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+14.9%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1635 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month