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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 1-12 the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yu (CN110239682, Machine Translation)
Regarding Claim 1, Yu et al. teaches a wave-resistant photovoltaic float for a water environment [Fig. 5 and 7, page 2 middle to bottom of page in translated document],
comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic carriers [Fig. 5, Fig. 9, figure 5 shows the photovoltaic carrier, and a plurality of carriers in figure 9, middle of page 7]; and
a photovoltaic module [8, Fig. 9, bottom of page 4, and top of page 5];
wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers comprises an upper
component [1, Fig. 7, top of page 4] and a lower component [2, Fig. 7, top of page 4], and the upper component and the lower component are integrally formed [Fig. 7]; the upper component and the lower component are each in a flat rectangular shape [Fig. 4 and Fig. 5]; and the upper component is located above a middle of the lower component [see area of 3 as the middle of the lower component 2, Fig. 6-7]; and a hollow portion [3, Fig. 6, bottom of page 4] is provided at the middle of the lower component, and is configured to run through the lower component [3 is shown to go through the middle of lower component 2, Fig. 6 and 7].
Regarding Claim 6, Yu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein adjacent two of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers are connected in a removable manner [See 11, Fig. 8, page 8, bottom of page]
Regarding Claim 7, Yu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein the adjacent two of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers are in a snap-fit connection, a sleeve connection or a combination thereof [See 11, Fig. 8, page 8, bottom of page]
Regarding Claim 8, Yu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein the adjacent two of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers are in the sleeve connection [see rejection above].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (CN110239682, Machine Translation)
Regarding Claim 2, Yu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yu et al. is silent on wherein a length of the upper component is smaller than a length of the lower component, and a width of the upper component is smaller than a width of the lower component; an upper surface of the lower component is configured to incline downwards towards an exterior of the lower component, and form an acute angle with a lower surface of the lower component; and the hollow portion is cylindrical, conical or cuboid.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion are changed, the precise parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a length of the upper component is smaller than a length of the lower component, and a width of the upper component is smaller than a width of the lower component; an upper surface of the lower component is configured to incline downwards towards an exterior of the lower component, and form an acute angle with a lower surface of the lower component; and the hollow portion is cylindrical, conical or cuboid.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 3, Yu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yu et al. is silent on wherein the hollow portion is cuboid.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion are changed, the precise parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the hollow portion is cuboid.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 4, Yu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yu et al. is silent on wherein the length of the lower component is 100-300 mm larger than that of the upper component, and the width of the lower component is 100-300 mm larger than that of the upper component.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion are changed, the precise parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the length of the lower component is 100-300 mm larger than that of the upper component, and the width of the lower component is 100-300 mm larger than that of the upper component.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 5, Yu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yu et al. is silent on wherein the length of the lower component is 100-400 mm larger than that of the hollow portion, and the width of the lower component is 100-400 mm larger than that of the hollow portion.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion are changed, the precise parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the length of the lower component is 100-400 mm larger than that of the hollow portion, and the width of the lower component is 100-400 mm larger than that of the hollow portion.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the upper component, lower component and hollow portion to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Yu (CN110239682, Machine Translation) is the closest prior art.
Yu et al. teaches limitations of the claim but does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the adjacent two of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers are connected through a steel cable; each of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers is sleeved on the steel cable through a connecting structure located around a periphery of the lower component; and each of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers is rotatable around a direction perpendicular to the steel cable.” in claim 9, “wherein the periphery of the lower component is provided with a plurality of grooves; each of the plurality of grooves is provided with the connecting structure; the connecting structure is sleeved on the steel cable; and the connecting structure is integrally connected with the lower component.” in claim 10, “wherein the periphery of lower component consists of two first sides and two second sides shorter than the two first sides; the number of grooves among the plurality of grooves on each of the two first sides of the lower component is 2-12; the grooves on each of the two first sides of the lower component are arranged evenly spaced apart at an interval of 400-700 mm; the number of grooves among the plurality of grooves on each of the two second sides of the lower component is 2-12; and the grooves on each of the two second sides of the lower component are arranged evenly spaced apart at an interval of 400-700 mm.” in claim 11 and “wherein the connecting structure comprises a stainless-steel sleeve and a connecting piece; a first side of the connecting piece is configured to be connected to the lower component, and a second side opposite to the first side of the connecting piece is configured to be connected to the stainless-steel sleeve.” in claim 12.
These references, nor any other reference or combination of references in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations of “wherein the adjacent two of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers are connected through a steel cable; each of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers is sleeved on the steel cable through a connecting structure located around a periphery of the lower component; and each of the plurality of photovoltaic carriers is rotatable around a direction perpendicular to the steel cable.” in claim 9, “wherein the periphery of the lower component is provided with a plurality of grooves; each of the plurality of grooves is provided with the connecting structure; the connecting structure is sleeved on the steel cable; and the connecting structure is integrally connected with the lower component.” in claim 10, “wherein the periphery of lower component consists of two first sides and two second sides shorter than the two first sides; the number of grooves among the plurality of grooves on each of the two first sides of the lower component is 2-12; the grooves on each of the two first sides of the lower component are arranged evenly spaced apart at an interval of 400-700 mm; the number of grooves among the plurality of grooves on each of the two second sides of the lower component is 2-12; and the grooves on each of the two second sides of the lower component are arranged evenly spaced apart at an interval of 400-700 mm.” in claim 11 and “wherein the connecting structure comprises a stainless-steel sleeve and a connecting piece; a first side of the connecting piece is configured to be connected to the lower component, and a second side opposite to the first side of the connecting piece is configured to be connected to the stainless-steel sleeve.” in claim 12.
Therefore; claim 1 is allowed once the limitations of claims 9-12 are incorporated into claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728