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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW M620149 U, Machine Translation) in view of Kim (KR 101450846 B1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a floating photovoltaic (PV) platform comprising (see Figs. 1-12) : a supporting structure (see Figs. 10-16, elements 12, S41, pgs. 6-7) on the underside of a main supporting element (see 201 and 50, 51, 52, see Figs. 2 and 3 see pg. 5-7), pontoon bodies (10, see pg. 4) formed in groups, each group being fixed to a frame of the supporting structure(see Fig. 12, elements 12, S41), wherein on the upper side of the main supporting element are PV modules (5) each of which is composed of a frame (Fig. 2, see pg. 5, description of solar panel assembly 5, 51) in which PV panels are housed.
In addition, Lin discloses wherein the positioning or the angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted (pg. 6, first paragraph) and wherein the angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted relative to the horizon (tracks sun throughout day).
However, Lin does not disclose that the supporting structure and the frame are formed out of metal.
Kim discloses a floating photovoltaic platform where the supporting structure and the frame are formed of metal (see 111 and 112 [0030][0031]) or plastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the material of the supporting structure and frame of Lin so that it is formed out of metal as disclosed by Kim because Kim discloses that metal is an appropriate material to form supporting structure and the frame for a floating photovoltaic platform.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
However, Lin does not disclose multiple platoon body groups.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the number of platoon body groups of Lin so that there are multiple platoon body groups because having multiple groups will allow for an increase in the amount of solar energy harnessed.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Lin does not disclose the following wherein the photovoltaic panels arranged in each PV module are located with their long side substantially parallel to the horizon.
Orienting the panels with their long side parallel to the horizon will increase the stability of the panel in high wind conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the orientation of the panels of modified Lin so that they are as claimed because doing so will increase the stability of the panel in high wind conditions.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Lin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Lin does not disclose
wherein the distance between the nearest edges of the frames of the mobile photovoltaic modules is in the range of between approximately 0.1 to 3 m
wherein the distance between the nearest edges of the frames of the mobile photovoltaic modules is in the range of between approximately 0.5 to 2.5 m
The arrangement and spacing of the frames of the PV modules will affect both the cost and the amount of energy harnessed on a platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art at the time of filing to modify the arrangement and spacing of the frames of the PV modules of modified Lin to be with the range claimed above because one would want to optimize cost and the amount of energy harnessed on a platform.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW M620149 U, Machine Translation) in view of Kim (KR 101450846 B1, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 8-10 above and in further view of Tung (US 20220103114 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Lin does not disclose wherein a surface under the photovoltaic panels further comprises reflective elements.
Tung discloses a reflecting element (24) between a main carrier element (portions which attach floating apparatus) and the supporting beam (portions of frames which support PV panels) on a floating platform which reflect light onto the bottom of a PV panel which is able to convert light to electricity ([0036][0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the floating PV platform of Lin to use bifacial PV panels as disclosed by Tung because it will increase the amount of energy produced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the floating PV platform of Lin to add in a shielding element between the PV frame and the and the pontoon frame as disclosed by Tung because it reflect additional light to the PV panel because it will reflect light onto the bottom of a PV panel which is able to convert light to electricity.
It is noted that a bifacial solar panel will inherently have an underside that is reflective, since photoactive surfaces of photovoltaic panels have a degree of reflectivity, further evidence provided by Lefevre (US 2019/0097571 A1 [0062]).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-7 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW M620149 U, Machine Translation) in view of Kim (KR 101450846 B1, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 8-10 above and in further view of Tung (US 20220103114 A1) and in view of Lee (KR 101837148 B1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 2, 12, 13, and 14, modified Lin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lin discloses wherein the supporting metal structure (see Figs. 10-16, elements 12, S41, pgs. 6-7) on the underside of a main supporting element (see 201 and 50, 51, 52, see Figs. 2 and 3 see pg. 5-7) pontoon bodies are established, with photovoltaic modules (5) located on the upper side of the main supporting element (see 201 and 50, 51, 52, see Figs. 2 and 3 see pg. 5-7, each of which is composed of a frame containing photovoltaic panels (Fig. 2, see pg. 5, description of solar panel assembly 5, 51), where the pontoon bodies groups of pontoon bodies were formed, each group of pontoon bodies being fixed to a metal frame (see Figs. 10-16, elements 12, S41, pgs. 6-7) of the supporting metal structure, an upper arm (see Fig. 8 portion connected to 51 above actuator), a lower arm (See Fig. 8, 62) and an actuator (61-linear screw type actuator, see pg. 5, fifth paragraph and entire page) in which the upper arm (portion connected to 51 above actuator) and the lower arm (62) at one end are connected to the working body of the actuator and the other end of the upper arm (portion connected to 51 above actuator) is connected to one end of the frame of the PV modules the other end of the lower arm (62) being connected by a supporting beam (201) of the supporting metal structure(see 201 and 50, 51, 52, see Figs. 2 and 3 see pg. 5-7), the opposite end of the frame (portions of 201 connect to 3, which is a bearing, pg. 5, fourth paragraph) being connected to a bearing body, established to the main supporting element, whereby the movable photovoltaic modules are arranged on the supporting carrier element in two opposite photovoltaic fields separated from each other by a service path (see Figs. 11 -13, S4, pgs. 6-7) each photovoltaic field being composed of the photovoltaic modules arranged in rows, the service path being composed of elements, removably connected to each other (See Fig. 13, attached with locking components that are removable).
However, modified Lin does not disclose shielding elements are established between the supporting beam and the main carrier element.
Tung discloses a shielding element (24) between a main carrier element (portions which attach floating apparatus) and the supporting beam (portions of frames which support PV panels) on a floating platform which reflect light onto the bottom of a PV panel which is able to convert light to electricity ([0036][0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the floating PV platform of Lin to use bifacial PV panels as disclosed by Tung because it will increase the amount of energy produced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the floating PV platform of Lin to add in a shielding element between the PV frame and the and the pontoon frame as disclosed by Tung because it reflect additional light to the PV panel because it will reflect light onto the bottom of a PV panel which is able to convert light to electricity.
The shielding elements of Tung are able to shield the panels from wind and water.
However, modified Lin does not disclose that the walkway is covered by a retro reflective coating.
Lee discloses that a retroreflective pain on pedestrian walks can increase visibility (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of filing to modify the walkway of modified Lin by coating it in a retroreflective paint because as disclosed by Lee doing so increases visibility.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lin discloses wherein each row is composed of three to four photovoltaic modules, and wherein the rows are from one to three (See Figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Lin discloses wherein the positioning or the angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted (pg. 6, first paragraph) and wherein the angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted relative to the horizon (tracks sun throughout day).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Lin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Lin does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted relative to the horizon from between approximately -15° to approximately +45°
wherein the angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted relative to the horizon from between -12.5° to +42.5°.
Lin discloses that the PV panels track the sun throughout the day (See pg. 6, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art at the time of filing to modify the angle of PV modules are adjusted to of modified Lin to be within the claimed range because as disclosed by Lin the PV panels track the sun throughout the day and the angle adjustment to track the sun will include the claimed angles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues while Lin discloses a floating photovoltaic platform with various structural components, Lin does not disclose or suggest that the positioning or angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted.
Lin discloses “In practical applications, the driving device can control the motor (driving member 61 of the pushing assembly 6) to rotate forward or backward by a predetermined angle according to the perpetual calendar timer contained therein, and according to the current time and date. The solar panel assembly 5 can rotate a predetermined angle in a specific direction relative to the supporting mechanism 2 to achieve the sun tracking effect, so that the solar panel 50 included in the solar panel
assembly 5 can face the sun at any time.” Therefore Lin discloses that the positioning or angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted.
Applicant argues the ability to adjust the angle and positioning of photovoltaic modules on a floating platform presents significant technical challenges that are far from trivial and involve an inventive step.
As disclosed above Lin discloses that the positioning or angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted.
Applicant further argues that the present invention allows for structural stability concerns, marine environmental considerations, independent module adjustment, increased energy efficiency, enhanced durability and reduced maintenance, and stability management.
With regards to “independent module adjustment” it is noted that claim 1 recites “wherein the positioning or the angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted”. Therefore, the argument is incommensurate with the scope of the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that structural stability concerns, marine environmental considerations, increased energy efficiency, enhanced durability and reduced maintenance, and stability management, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues with respect to claim 11, that the “dynamic interaction between adjustable modules and retroreflective surfaces is not taught by Tung's fixed system.”
No retroreflective surfaces are claimed in claim 11 only a reflective surface and Tung discloses a reflective surface. In addition, as disclosed above Lin discloses that the modules are adjustable.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 11-14, Applicant argues that while Lee (KR 101837148 B1) teaches retroreflective paint on pedestrian walks to increase visibility it is a completely different application-pedestrian safety-and provides no teaching or suggestion relevant to adjustable positioning of PV modules on floating platforms.
Lin discloses a walkway between photovoltaic modules for maintenance (see pg. 5).
Lee discloses that a retroreflective pain on pedestrian walks can increase visibility (Abstract).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case,
there is motivation to provide retroreflective provided by Lee to the walkway of Lin.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine to achieve the claimed adjustability.
Lin discloses “In practical applications, the driving device can control the motor (driving member 61 of the pushing assembly 6) to rotate forward or backward by a predetermined angle according to the perpetual calendar timer contained therein, and according to the current time and date. The solar panel assembly 5 can rotate a predetermined angle in a specific direction relative to the supporting mechanism 2 to achieve the sun tracking effect, so that the solar panel 50 included in the solar panel
assembly 5 can face the sun at any time.” Therefore Lin discloses that the positioning or angle of the photovoltaic modules can be adjusted.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726