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 .
Specification
The abstract is objected to because it includes the phrase “is provided” in line 1 which is implied and should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites, “the thickness of the floatation member formed by one or more floatation elements” and should be –the thickness of the floatation member is formed by one or more floatation elements--.
Claims 30 and 32 appear to be mismatched in dependency as “supporting” is a method step and “further comprising” is addition of structure. It is believed that claim 30 should depend on 24 and 32 on 1. Additionally, 32 should be corrected to –further comprising a plurality of photovoltaic panels on the pontoon--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 6, and 16 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.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the beam body has a substantially planar shape”. It is unclear how the shape can be planar if the beam must include a flange.
Claim 6 recites, “wherein the width of the beam coincides with the height of the pontoon”. As the beam is part of the pontoon it is unclear how it can “coincide” with the height of the pontoon. Is applicant claiming the beam defining the height of the pontoon?
Claim 16 recites, “in particular lower than 1000 kg/m3” It is unclear if limitations following “in particular” are required or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 12, 15-16, 19, 22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Schneider (US 3785312).
For claim 1, Schneider discloses a pontoon for supporting an energy conversion installation on a body of water (abstract and figs), the pontoon comprising:
a structural frame (see figs. 5, 9, 10 for instance), comprising a plurality of flanged beams (38 and/or 34) interconnected to form a frame (figs. 9-10), wherein the flanged beams define a volume between them and the flanged beams each comprise an elongated beam body and at least one flange protruding away from the beam body towards the volume defined between the beams (see figs. 9-10); and
a floatation member (46, 32, 33), positioned at least partially in the volume defined between the beams (see fig. 11).
For claim 2, Schneider further discloses wherein the floatation member at least partially abuts at least one of the flanges of the flanged beams (see figs. 9-12).
For claim 3, Schneider further discloses wherein the floatation member is fully positioned in the volume defined between the beams (see figs. 9-12).
For claim 4, Schneider further discloses wherein the flange is provided under an angle relative to the beam body (see figs. 9-10, flange is at some angle).
For claim 5, Schneider further disclose wherein the beam body has a substantially planar shape (see fig. 10, 38 as best understood minus the inward flange).
For claim 6, Schneider further discloses wherein the width of the beam coincides with the height of the pontoon (as best understood, the beams define the pontoon height).
For claim 8, Schneider further discloses wherein the flotation member is confined between the flanges (see figs. 9-10).
For claim 12, Schneider further discloses wherein the floatation member comprises a plurality of separate floatation elements (see fig. 5, multiple floatation members).
For claim 15, Schneider further discloses wherein the floatation member comprising a layered structure of at least two layers (layer of element 46 and layer 32 on top and bottom, layer 33 on sides), wherein at least one of the layers in the layered structure has an average density lower than a density of water (at least 46, see Col. 7, lines 10-29).
For claim 16, Schneider further discloses wherein the floatation member comprises a top layer (32), a bottom layer (32), and a middle layer (46) positioned between the top layer and the bottom layer, and wherein the middle layer has the average density lower than the density of water (see Col. 7, lines 10-29), in particular lower than 1000 kg/m3.
For claim 19, Schneider further discloses wherein the beams form a rectangular structural frame (see figs. 9-10).
For claim 22, Schneider further discloses further comprising one or more joint members connecting ends of the beams (18, see for instance fig. 5).
For claim 24, Schneider discloses a method for assembling a pontoon for supporting an energy conversion installation on a body of water (abstract and figs.), the method comprises the steps of:
forming a structural frame by interconnecting a plurality of flanged beams (38 and/or 34, see figs. 9-10) thereby forming a volume between the flanged beams; and positioning one or more floatation elements (46, 32, 33) in the volume defined by the plurality of flanged beams (figs. 9-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider.
For claim 18, Schneider is silent about wherein the beams have a density higher than the density of water.
Schneider however does teach the beams (18) having a density higher than water (Col. 8, lines 28-30).
Therefor it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make all the beams of Schneider of the same material, in order to ensure structural integrity of the frame.
Claim(s) 7, 11, 28, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Jack et al. (US 9447643).
For claim 7 Schneider further teaches wherein the beam bodies together comprise a first flange near a top of the pontoon and a second flange near a bottom of the pontoon (see figs.) the flanges are provided under an angle relative to the beam body (at an angle), and at least part of the flanges is directed to a centre side of the pontoon, relative to the beam body (see at least 38, top and bottom, figs. 9-10).
Schneider is silent about one beam having both first and second flanges, however this merely an integration of parts, thus accordingly it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make one beam include both flanges, in order to support the floatation element and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Additionally and/or alternatively Jack teaches a beam structure (16, 18) including top and bottom flanges (see fig. 3) provided at an angle and directed towards a center relative to the beam body (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make one beam include both flanges, as taught by Jack, in order to support the element from both sides.
For claim 11, Schneider further teaches wherein the thickness of the floatation member (46, 32) formed by one or more floatation elements (46) corresponds to a distance between two flanges (see figs. 9-10, between the flanges of upper and lower 38), the two flanges provided on opposite sides, the flanges being provided along the length of the beam body (see figs. 9-10).
Schneider is silent about one beam having both first and second flanges, however this merely an integration of parts, thus accordingly it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make one beam include both flanges, in order to support the floatation element and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Additionally and/or alternatively Jack teaches a beam structure (16, 18) including top and bottom flanges (see fig. 3) provided at an angle and directed towards a center relative to the beam body (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make one beam include both flanges, as taught by Jack, in order to support the element from both sides.
For claim 28, Schneider further teaches wherein the flanged beams comprise an elongated beam body (see figs.) and the beams together include two flanges extending from the beam bodies in generally the same direction and wherein at least part of the one or more floatation elements are positioned between the two flanges (see figs. 9-10).
Schneider is silent about one beam having both first and second flanges, however this merely an integration of parts, thus accordingly it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make one beam include both flanges, in order to support the floatation element and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Additionally and/or alternatively Jack teaches a beam structure (16, 18) including top and bottom flanges (see fig. 3) provided at an angle and directed towards a center relative to the beam body (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make one beam include both flanges, as taught by Jack, in order to support the element from both sides.
For claim 31, modified Schneider further teaches wherein the flanges are provided along the full length of the beam (see figs. 9-10).
Claim(s) 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of KR 20150000604 (provided herein, see English translation provided herein, hereafter referred to as KR ‘604).
For claims 30, 32 Schneider is silent about supporting a plurality of photovoltaic panels.
KR ‘604 teaches a pontoon assembly supporting a plurality of photovoltaic panels (400, abstract, figs.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the structure of Schneider support photovoltaic panels, as taught by the floatation structure of KR ‘604, in order to generate solar power.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art of record is noted as it pertains to pontoon frames and/or pontoons supporting solar panels.
Furthermore the office notes that claims 1 and 24 are also anticipated by Fisher (US 3970024) as per the written opinion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 5712705301. 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.
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights