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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a plurality of main floating bodies, arranged such that they define a floating plane”, and “the most distant floating bodies being spaced from one another by at least a distance”. Its unclear if the most distant floating bodies are a part of the plurality of main floating bodies. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “said device”. Its unclear if this corresponds to the floating device or a different device. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a main floating body”. Its unclear if this main floating body is a part of the plurality of main floating bodies or a separate distinct element. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “the plane of the impact structures”. The term “the plane” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 3, Applicant recites, “the joining points between each floating support and the main floating body”. The recitation “the joining points” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “the grid of chains or ropes”. Its unclear if Applicant is further limiting the synthetic fibre ropes or chains or if a different grid of chains or ropes is being further limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “comprise(s) galvanized”. Its unclear how something can comprise galvanized, or what galvanized corresponds to specifically. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “wherein the attachment of the second mooring elements with the main floating bodies…comprise(s)”. Its unclear what corresponds to “the attachment of the secondary mooring elements”. Additionally, this phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “a global inverter”. Its unclear how the word “global” further limits the inverter. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites, “which comprises performing the following steps in any technically possible order”. Its unclear how the phrase, “in any technically possible order” further limits the phrase “performing the following steps”. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites, “considering a significant wave height”. Its unclear how the word “significant” further limits the phrase “wave height”. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites, “A method for installing a plurality of photovoltaic panels”, and “providing a plurality of photovoltaic panels”. Its unclear if the second recitation of a plurality of photovoltaic elements corresponds to the first recitation of a plurality of photovoltaic panels or if the second recitation corresponds to new distinct elements. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 2025/0091696 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0186939 A1) in view of Sinn et al. (US 2024/0208618 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Boon et al. discloses a floating device for the installation of offshore photovoltaic panels, said device being characterized in that is comprises:
a plurality of main floating bodies arranged such that they define a floating plane (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1, below, BC1-BC4 & Paragraph 0074);
the floating bodies are spaced from one another by at least a distance of 10 meters (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4 – Paragraph 0020 – the length of the deck is 25-75 m, thus elements SB1-SB4 are well above 10 meters in length);
wherein the main floating bodies comprise several leak-tight compartments isolated from one another (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4 are vertical buoyancy columns separated from one another);
a plurality of floating supports configured to join the plurality of main floating bodies together (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1, below, SB1-SB4 and the diagonal braces & Paragraph 0092);
Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
642
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a support cover joined to the second ends of the poles (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 3, below); and the support cover has a surface of at least 100 meters (Paragraph 0083 – the top of the deck is 35x35 meters)
at least one anchoring element (Fig. 3, the “points” connected to CL are anchor points on the seam bottom – Paragraph 0059);
and a mooring structure configured to join the main floating bodies and the plurality of floating supports with the anchoring element (Fig. 2, CL – mooring lines – Paragraph 0059-0060).
Boon et al. discloses that the main floating bodies (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4) can have lengths of up 25 meters but is silent on what the diameters of the main floating bodies are and thus does not explicitly disclose that the main floating bodies are configured to displace at least 80 cubic meters of total water.
Zhang et al. discloses that main floating bodies (long cylindrical buoy) should have a ratio of a diameter to a total length in a range that is preferably 1:2 or less than 1:10 because advantageously the smaller the ratio of diameter to overall length and the greater the overall length, there is a smaller change in buoyancy due to wave movement and thus the main floating bodies vertical movement is smaller compared to wave movement (Paragraph 0100). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the main floating bodies of Boon et al. incorporate this ratio of a diameter to a total length to be in a range that is preferably 1:2 or less than 1:10 for the advantage of having the main floating bodies vertical movement to be smaller compared to a wave movement.
In regards to the limitation that the main floating bodies would be configured to displace at least 80 cubic meters of water in total, each of Boon et al. main floating bodies can be 25 meters in length, and have been modified to have diameters that are 1:2 or less than 1:10 of the length of the main floating body. Thus, 25 meters multiplied by 6 meters (below the 1:2 ratio), would result in each main floating body displacing well above 2,826 cubic meters of water (using the volume of a cylinder formula V=πr2h).
Boon et al. does not disclose a plurality of poles arranged along each of the main floating bodies, each pole having a first end that is joined to a main floating body and a second end opposite the first end, wherein each of the poles measures at least 5 meters.
Sinn et al. discloses a plurality of poles (Figs. 1 & 9, #53-#54) that are arranged along main floating bodies (Fig. 9, #100), each pole having a first end that is joined to a main floating body (Fig. 9, #54, the portion of the pole adjacent to the main floating body 100 is connected to vertical buoyant structures underneath the water line 63). Sinn et al. discloses that including these diagonal cross members (poles) creates a stable framework (Paragraph 0085). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of poles arranged along each of the main floating bodies, each pole having a first end that is joined to a main floating body and a second end opposite the first end in modified Boon et al. floating device for the advantage of having a more stable framework for the floating device.
In regards to the poles measuring at least 5 meters, the deck of Boon et al. measures in some embodiments 75 meters in length (Paragraph 0081, 0083) while allowing a 5-meter overhang on either side of the floating bodies (Paragraph 0083), thus the distance between the floating bodies can be up to 65 meters. The combination of Sinn et al. with Boon et al. that includes poles diagonal between the floating bodies would be well above 5 meters in length.
In view of Claim 3, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Boon et al. teaches that the floating supports are contained in the floating plane defined by the main floating bodies (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1, above, SB1-SB4 & Paragraph 0092) and the joining points between each floating support and the main floating body are arranged equidistantly such that each floating support is attached orthogonally or diagonally to said floating bodies (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1, above, where SB1-SB4 and other braces are joined with elements BC1-BC4).
In view of Claim 4, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Sinn et al. teaches that some of the poles are arranged perpendicular to the floating plane (Fig. 8, #53).
In view of Claim 5, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Sinn et al. teaches that some of the poles are arranged forming an angle comprised between 5-60 degrees with respect to the floating plane (Fig. 8, #54).
In view of Claim 7, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Boon et al. teaches that the main floating bodies (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4 – Paragraph 0020), the floating supports (Fig. 1, SB1-SB4) and the support cover form a base joined in an integral manner (Fig. 1, portion of the deck supporting the modules). Sinn et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to form poles integral with the main floating bodies of Boon.
In view of Claim 9, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Boon et al. teaches a current inverter suitable for receiving energy and conveying it out of the floating device (Paragraph 0024) and a transformer suitable for receiving energy and conveying it out of the floating device (Paragraph 0038).
In view of Claim 14, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Boon et al. teaches the anchoring element comprises an anchor (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0059).
In view of Claim 15, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Boon et al. teaches the main floating bodies comprise at least one anchoring element for receiving the main mooring element (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0059).
In view of Claim 16, Boon et al. discloses a floating solar power plant (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of floating devices that comprise:
a plurality of main floating bodies arranged such that they define a floating plane (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1, below, BC1-BC4 & Paragraph 0074);
the floating bodies are spaced from one another by at least a distance of 10 meters (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4 – Paragraph 0020 – the length of the deck is 25-75 m, thus elements SB1-SB4 are well above 10 meters in length);
wherein the main floating bodies comprise several leak-tight compartments isolated from one another (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4 are vertical buoyancy columns separated from one another);
a plurality of floating supports configured to join the plurality of main floating bodies together (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1, below, SB1-SB4 and the diagonal braces & Paragraph 0092);
Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
642
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a support cover joined to the second ends of the poles (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 3, below); and the support cover has a surface of at least 100 meters (Paragraph 0083 – the top of the deck is 35x35 meters);
a plurality of photovoltaic panels (Paragraph 0023) coupled to the support cover of each of the floating devices, each photovoltaic panel comprising a current output (Fig. 1, OF & Paragraph 0024, 0055);
transverse joining elements configured to join at least two floating devices to one another (Figs. 2-3, CL & Paragraph 0025, 0050-0051);
at least one anchoring element (Fig. 3, the “points” connected to CL are anchor points on the seam bottom – Paragraph 0059);
and a mooring structure configured to join the main floating bodies and the plurality of floating supports with the anchoring element (Fig. 2, CL – mooring lines – Paragraph 0059-0060).
Boon et al. discloses that the main floating bodies (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4) can have lengths of up 25 meters but is silent on what the diameters of the main floating bodies are and thus does not explicitly disclose that the main floating bodies are configured to displace at least 80 cubic meters of total water.
Zhang et al. discloses that main floating bodies (long cylindrical buoy) should have a ratio of a diameter to a total length in a range that is preferably 1:2 or less than 1:10 because advantageously the smaller the ratio of diameter to overall length and the greater the overall length, there is a smaller change in buoyancy due to wave movement and thus the main floating bodies vertical movement is smaller compared to wave movement (Paragraph 0100). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the main floating bodies of Boon et al. incorporate this ratio of a diameter to a total length to be in a range that is preferably 1:2 or less than 1:10 for the advantage of having the main floating bodies vertical movement to be smaller compared to a wave movement.
In regards to the limitation that the main floating bodies would be configured to displace at least 80 cubic meters of water in total, each of Boon et al. main floating bodies can be 25 meters in length, and have been modified to have diameters that are 1:2 or less than 1:10 of the length of the main floating body. Thus, 25 meters multiplied by 6 meters (below the 1:2 ratio), would result in each main floating body displacing well above 2,826 cubic meters of water (using the volume of a cylinder formula V=πr2h).
Boon et al. does not disclose a plurality of poles arranged along each of the main floating bodies, each pole having a first end that is joined to a main floating body and a second end opposite the first end, wherein each of the poles measures at least 5 meters.
Sinn et al. discloses a plurality of poles (Figs. 1 & 9, #53-#54) that are arranged along main floating bodies (Fig. 9, #100), each pole having a first end that is joined to a main floating body (Fig. 9, #54, the portion of the pole adjacent to the main floating body 100 is connected to vertical buoyant structures underneath the water line 63). Sinn et al. discloses that including these diagonal cross members (poles) creates a stable framework (Paragraph 0085). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of poles arranged along each of the main floating bodies, each pole having a first end that is joined to a main floating body and a second end opposite the first end in modified Boon et al. floating device for the advantage of having a more stable framework for the floating device.
In regards to the poles measuring at least 5 meters, the deck of Boon et al. measures in some embodiments 75 meters in length (Paragraph 0081, 0083) while allowing a 5-meter overhang on either side of the floating bodies (Paragraph 0083), thus the distance between the floating bodies can be up to 65 meters. The combination of Sinn et al. with Boon et al. that includes poles diagonal between the floating bodies would be well above 5 meters in length.
In view of Claim 19, Boon et al. discloses a method for installing a plurality of photovoltaic panels (Paragraph 0009, 0011) which comprises the steps:
considering a significant wave height (Paragraph 0010, 0019)
a plurality of main floating bodies arranged such that they define a floating plane (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1, below, BC1-BC4 & Paragraph 0074);
the floating bodies are spaced from one another by at least a distance of 10 meters (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4 – Paragraph 0020 – the length of the deck is 25-75 m, thus elements SB1-SB4 are well above 10 meters in length);
wherein the main floating bodies comprise several leak-tight compartments isolated from one another (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4 are vertical buoyancy columns separated from one another);
a plurality of floating supports configured to join the plurality of main floating bodies together (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1, below, SB1-SB4 and the diagonal braces & Paragraph 0092);
Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
642
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a support cover joined to the second ends of the poles (See Annotated Boon et al. Fig. 3, below); and the support cover has a surface of at least 100 meters (Paragraph 0083 – the top of the deck is 35x35 meters);
providing a plurality of photovoltaic panels and arranging them on the support cover of the floating devices (Fig. 1, OF & Paragraph 0023-0024, 0055);
wherein the distance between the floating plane and the support cover is at least equal to the significant wave height (Paragraph 0010-0015);
at least one anchoring element (Fig. 3, the “points” connected to CL are anchor points on the seam bottom – Paragraph 0059);
anchoring the main floating supports of the floating devices at an installation point located in the water by means of the anchoring elements (Figs. 2-3, & Paragraph 0059-0060);
and a mooring structure configured to join the main floating bodies and the plurality of floating supports with the anchoring element (Fig. 2, CL – mooring lines – Paragraph 0059-0060).
Boon et al. discloses that the main floating bodies (Fig. 1, BC1-BC4) can have lengths of up 25 meters but is silent on what the diameters of the main floating bodies are and thus does not explicitly disclose that the main floating bodies are configured to displace at least 80 cubic meters of total water.
Zhang et al. discloses that main floating bodies (long cylindrical buoy) should have a ratio of a diameter to a total length in a range that is preferably 1:2 or less than 1:10 because advantageously the smaller the ratio of diameter to overall length and the greater the overall length, there is a smaller change in buoyancy due to wave movement and thus the main floating bodies vertical movement is smaller compared to wave movement (Paragraph 0100). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the main floating bodies of Boon et al. incorporate this ratio of a diameter to a total length to be in a range that is preferably 1:2 or less than 1:10 for the advantage of having the main floating bodies vertical movement to be smaller compared to a wave movement.
In regards to the limitation that the main floating bodies would be configured to displace at least 80 cubic meters of water in total, each of Boon et al. main floating bodies can be 25 meters in length, and have been modified to have diameters that are 1:2 or less than 1:10 of the length of the main floating body. Thus, 25 meters multiplied by 6 meters (below the 1:2 ratio), would result in each main floating body displacing well above 2,826 cubic meters of water (using the volume of a cylinder formula V=πr2h).
Boon et al. does not disclose a plurality of poles arranged along each of the main floating bodies, each pole having a first end that is joined to a main floating body and a second end opposite the first end, wherein each of the poles measures at least 5 meters.
Sinn et al. discloses a plurality of poles (Figs. 1 & 9, #53-#54) that are arranged along main floating bodies (Fig. 9, #100), each pole having a first end that is joined to a main floating body (Fig. 9, #54, the portion of the pole adjacent to the main floating body 100 is connected to vertical buoyant structures underneath the water line 63). Sinn et al. discloses that including these diagonal cross members (poles) creates a stable framework (Paragraph 0085). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of poles arranged along each of the main floating bodies, each pole having a first end that is joined to a main floating body and a second end opposite the first end in modified Boon et al. floating device for the advantage of having a more stable framework for the floating device.
In regards to the poles measuring at least 5 meters, the deck of Boon et al. measures in some embodiments 75 meters in length (Paragraph 0081, 0083) while allowing a 5-meter overhang on either side of the floating bodies (Paragraph 0083), thus the distance between the floating bodies can be up to 65 meters. The combination of Sinn et al. with Boon et al. that includes poles diagonal between the floating bodies would be well above 5 meters in length.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 2025/0091696 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0186939 A1) in view of Sinn et al. (US 2024/0208618 A1) in view of Smadja et al. (US 2016/0156304 A1) in view of Atsushi et al. (JP 2019-217801 A). Atsushi et al. is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 2, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Boon et al. does not disclose a ship berthing element that comprises at least two impact structures suitable for receiving the impact of a vessel upon berthing and an access stairway located on a plane other than the plane of the impact structures.
Smadja et al. discloses an access stairway that is located on a plane that’s perpendicular to the floating plane (Fig. 3, #82) that facilitates maintenance by providing an access way such that technical personnel can easily access the upper level of a float in the case of malfunction or routine maintenance (Paragraph 0049). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include Smadja et al. access stairway in Boon et al. floating device such that is located on a plane that’s perpendicular to the floating plane for the advantage of providing an access way such that technical personnel can easily access the upper level of a float in the case of malfunction or routine maintenance.
Atsushi et al. discloses a ship berthing element associated with an access way that includes two impact structures suitable for receiving the impact of a vessel upon berthing (Fig. 2, #40-#41 & Paragraph 0034) that advantageously prevents the hull and the ladder from being displaced by the influence of waves while reducing the time required to fix the hull of a boat thus improving safety (Paragraph 0035). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate this ship berthing element with the access stairway of modified Boon et al. such that the access way that includes two impact structures suitable for receiving the impact of a vessel upon berthing for the advantage of improving safety.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 2025/0091696 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0186939 A1) in view of Sinn et al. (US 2024/0208618 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0361714 A1).
In view of Claim 8, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Boon et al. discloses at least ten tilted structured all of them being joined to the support cover and each of them being configured to receive a solar panel (Fig. 1, OF1 & Paragraph 0046) but does not disclose that they are tilt adjustable such that their orientation is regulated with respect to the support cover.
Kim et al. discloses tilted solar panels (Fig. 2, #13 & Paragraph 0022) that are tilt adjustable such that their orientation is regular with respect to their support cover (Fig. 3, #14 is planar on support cover #11 - Paragraph 0046) and that this configuration is advantageous in enhancing the efficiency of solar collection (Paragraph 0046). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the solar panels be tilt adjustable such that their orientation is regulated with respect to the support cove in modified Boon et al. floating device for the advantage of enhancing efficiency of solar collection.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 2025/0091696 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0186939 A1) in view of Sinn et al. (US 2024/0208618 A1) in view of Alwitt et al. (US 2012/0279557 A1).
In view of Claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Although Boon et al. discloses a mooring structure, its not disclose that it’s a grid of synthetic fibre ropes or chains in which each vertex of said grid is joined to a main floating body and/or to a floating support by means of a secondary mooring element such that the grid of chains or ropes is located in a plane other than the floating plane, wherein the attachment of the secondary mooring elements with the main floating bodies and/or the plurality of floating supports comprise galvanized, stainless steel, or swivel shackles.
Zhang et al. discloses a mooring structure of chains (Paragraph 0081) that comprise a grid (Fig. 1, #114, and the chains that attach to vertical members #111), in which each vertex of said grid is joined to a main floating body (Fig. 6, individual chains attached to bottom floating bodies #111), wherein the grid of chains is located in a plane other than the floating plane (Fig. 1, ST & Paragraph 0076). Zhang et al. discloses that this prevents contraction of the module array (array) reduction) by preventing radial outward pull (Paragraph 0092). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include Zhang et al. mooring structure of chains that comprise a grid, in which each vertex of said grid joined to a main floating body wherein the grid of chains is located in a plane other than the floating plane for the advantages of preventing radial outward pull of the module array of Boon et al.
Alwitt et al. discloses that suitable materials for mooring lines are myriad and varied and include without limitation galvanized or stainless-steel cable (Paragraph 0018). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use galvanized or stainless-steel cable as the materials of the mooring lines as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
In view of Claim 12, as best understood by the Examiner, Boon et al., Zhang et al., Sinn et al., and Alwitt et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Zhang et al. discloses that at least two of the vertexes of the grid are joined to floating buoys (Fig. 6, #116 & Paragraph 0078).
In view of Claim 13, as best understood by the Examiner, Boon et al., Zhang et al., Sinn et al., and Alwitt et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Zhang et al. discloses main mooring elements connecting the grid with the anchoring elements (Fig. 6, #112-#113).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 2025/0091696 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0186939 A1) in view of Sinn et al. (US 2024/0208618 A1) in view of Cap et al. (US 2012/0090667 A1).
In view of Claim 17, Boon et al., Zhang et al., and Sinn et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Boon et al. teaches each floating device comprises at least one current output (Paragraph 0024) but does not disclose that the solar power plant comprises a general current output cable which receives the current outputs from each floating device and comprises a floating element.
Cap et al. discloses that the current outputs from a plurality of floating devices are included into a conduit (output cable) that receives the current outputs from each floating device and comprises a floating element (Fig. 15a, #1513a-b are placed into a conduit to output 1505a & Paragraph 0204-0205) and that this configuration can minimize the number of cables (Paragraph 0183). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the solar power plant comprises a general current output cable which receives the current outputs from each floating device and comprises a floating element for the advantage of minimizing the number of cables required in the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon et al. (US 2025/0091696 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0186939 A1) in view of Sinn et al. (US 2024/0208618 A1) in view of Cap et al. (US 2012/0090667 A1) in view of Clemenzi et al. (US 2019/0134822 A1).
In view of Claim 18, Boon et al., Zhang et al., Sinn et al., and Cap et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 17. Modified Boon et al. does not disclose a global inverter having an input connected to the current outputs of each floating device and having an output connected to the general current output cable.
Clemenzi et al. discloses a global inverter (Fig. 14, #274) having an input connected to the current outputs of each floating device (Fig. 14, #262) and having an output connected to the general current output cable that is advantageous because it reduces the number of conversion devices used (e.g., less inverters) while also limiting their size (Fig. 14, #264 & Paragraph 0068). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to have a global inverter having an input connected to the current outputs of each floating device and having an output connected to the general current output cable in modified Boon et al. floating solar power plant for the advantaging of reducing the number of conversion devices used while also having a size advantage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726