DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on June 19, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the combination of Invention II requires the particulars of the subcombination of Invention I and because it is not established that a serious search and/or examination burden would exists. This is not found persuasive because the combination of Invention II does not require a support structure connected with each of the multiple floating structures and because the inventions require a different field of search, such as employing different search strategies or search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending while claims 9-15 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites, “the solar panel sections while trailing the solar panel sections” on line 10. It is unclear if “the solar panel sections” recited on line 10 of claim 5 is referring to any of the “multiple solar panel sections” recited on line 3 of claim 5 and, if so which of the multiple solar panels sections, or if “the solar panel sections” recited on line 10 of claim 5 is referring to entirely different solar panel sections altogether. Appropriate correction is required.
Amending “the solar panel sections” to “the multiple solar panel sections” would overcome the objection.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites, “with multiple floating structures, with multiple floating structures” on line 5-6. 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 1-8, 16, and 17 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 1 recites the limitation "the solar panel section" on line 8-9, and again throughout the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is more than one previously recited “solar panel section” (see line 3 “a plurality of solar panel sections”), it is unclear as to what “the solar panel section” recited on lien 8-9 of claim 1 is referring to.
Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the solar panel section" on line 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As there is more than one previously recited “solar panel section” (see line 3 “multiple solar panel sections”), it is unclear as to what “the solar panel section” recited on lien 8-9 of claim 5 is referring to.
Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the trailing platform" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the multiple solar panels" on line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Howlin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2026/0021875 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Howlin et al. discloses an apparatus for collecting solar energy for a marine vessel, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of solar panel sections comprising a plurality of solar panels (such as depicted in Fig. 3, a plurality of solar panel sections at each unit 100 comprising a plurality of solar panels 20);
multiple floating structures coupled to each of the plurality of solar panel sections (such as depicted in Fig. 1-3, multiple floating structures, pair of 10 per unit 100, coupled to each of the cited plurality of solar panel sections at each unit 100), wherein each floating structure comprises
a hull that is shaped to reduce hydrodynamic drag while the multiple floating structures are trailed on a water surface behind the marine vessel (such as depicted in Fig. 1-3, each cited floating structure 10 comprises a hull cited to read on the claimed “that is shaped to reduce hydrodynamic drag while the multiple floating structures are trailed on a water surface behind the marine vessel” because the cited hull has a shape structurally capable of reducing hydrodynamic drag while the cited multiple floating structures 10 are trailed on a water surface behind the marine vessel compared to another shape which provides more hydrodynamic drag); and
a support structure connected with each of the multiple floating structures and the solar panel section (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, a support structure 5 connected with each of the cited multiple floating structures 10 and the solar panel section at unit 100), wherein
the multiple floating structures are longitudinally positioned and support the solar panel section while trailing the plurality of solar panel sections about the water surface (as depicted in Fig. 1-4, the cited multiple floating structures 10 are cited to read on the claimed “are longitudinally positioned and support the solar panel section while trailing the plurality of solar panel sections about the water surface” because they are structurally capable of being longitudinally positioned and support the solar panel section at unit 100 while trailing the plurality of solar panel sections at each unit 100 about the water surface).
With regard to claim 2, Howlin et al. discloses wherein each floating structure further comprises:
a bow shaped to displace water as the multiple floating structures are trailed on the water surface (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, each cited floating structure 10 further comprises a bow, foremost part, cited to read on the claimed “shaped to displace water as the multiple floating structures are trailed on the water surface” because the cited bow has a shape structurally capable of displacing water as the cited multiple floating structures 10 are trailed on the water surface).
With regard to claim 3, Howlin et al. discloses wherein
the multiple floating structures are catamaran-style structure with dual pontoons connected by the support structure for load distribution of the solar panel section (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, the cited multiple floating structures, recall pair of 10 per unit 100, are catamaran-style structure with dual pontoons 10 connected by the cited support structure 5 for load distribution of the solar panel section at each unit 100).
With regard to claim 4, Howlin et al. discloses wherein
each of the multiple floating structures are hollow or have a foam filled with an interior of the floating structure (see [0044] teaching each of the cited multiple floating structures 10 as “pipe elements”, which are hollow structures).
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howlin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2026/0021875 A1) in view of Rikoski (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0156753 A1).
With regard to claims 16 and 17, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Howlin et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as discussed above.
Howlin et al. does not disclose further comprising a storage system comprising a housing and retraction mechanism.
However, Rikoski discloses an apparatus for collecting solar energy for a marine vessel (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a storage system, wherein multiple floating structures and solar panel section are configured to be stored in the storage system in or on a marine vessel with the plurality of solar panels being configured to be compacted together and disposed in the storage system, wherein the storage system comprises a housing, and comprises a retraction mechanism to retract a trailing platform of the multiple solar panels from the water (see [0009] teaching solar panels may be rolled into and out of a housing which would necessarily include a retraction mechanism).
Rikoski discloses the storage system allows for solar panel assembly to be stored in the housing (see [0008]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Howlin et al. to include the storage system, as suggested by Rikoski, because it would have allowed for the apparatus to be stored.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howlin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2026/0021875 A1) in view of Bersano et al. (FR 2968070 A1).
With regard to claim 5, Howlin et al. discloses an apparatus for collecting solar energy for a marine vessel, the apparatus comprising:
multiple solar panel sections, comprising a plurality of solar panels (such as depicted in Fig. 3, multiple solar panel sections at each unit 100 comprising a plurality of solar panels 20);
multiple floating structures coupled to each of the multiple solar panel sections (such as depicted in Fig. 1-3, multiple floating structures, pair of 10 per unit 100, coupled to each of the cited multiple solar panel sections at each unit 100), wherein each floating structure comprises
a hull that is shaped to reduce hydrodynamic drag while multiple floating structures are trailed on a water surface behind the marine vessel (such as depicted in Fig. 1-3, each cited floating structure 10 comprises a hull cited to read on the claimed “that is shaped to reduce hydrodynamic drag while the multiple floating structures are trailed on a water surface behind the marine vessel” because the cited hull has a shape structurally capable of reducing hydrodynamic drag while the cited multiple floating structures 10 are trailed on a water surface behind the marine vessel compared to another shape which provides more hydrodynamic drag); and
a support structure connected with each of the multiple floating structures and the solar panel section (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, a support structure 5 connected with each of the cited multiple floating structures 10 and the solar panel section at unit 100), wherein
the multiple floating structures are longitudinally positioned and support the solar panel sections while trailing the solar panel sections about the water surface (as depicted in Fig. 1-4, the cited multiple floating structures 10 are cited to read on the claimed “are longitudinally positioned and support the solar panel section while trailing the plurality of solar panel sections about the water surface” because they are structurally capable of being longitudinally positioned and support the solar panel section at unit 100 while trailing the plurality of solar panel sections at each unit 100 about the water surface); wherein
the multiple solar panel sections are separate independently floating sections (as depicted in Fig. 1-4, the cited multiple floating structures, recall pair of 10 per unit 100, are separate independently floating sections).
Howlin et al. does not disclose wherein the multiple solar panel sections are interconnected via wiring to one another.
However, Bersano et al. discloses an apparatus for collecting solar energy (see Title and Abstract) and teaches multiple separate independently floating solar panel sections can be interconnected via wiring to one another to provide for series connection (see wiring 24 depicted Fig. 17 as interconnecting multiple separate independently floating solar panel sections 101).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus of Howlin et al. to include the wiring of Bersano et al. because it would have provided for interconnection of the multiple solar panel sections in series.
With regard to claim 6, independent claim 5 is obvious over Howlin et al. in view of Bersano et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Howlin et al. discloses wherein
the multiple solar panel sections have buffers to absorb impact forces during lateral collisions of the separate independently floating sections (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, the multiple solar panel sections at each unit 100 have buffers 8/9 to absorb impact forces during lateral collisions of the separate independently floating sections at each unit 100).
With regard to claim 7, independent claim 5 is obvious over Howlin et al. in view of Bersano et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Howlin et al. discloses wherein each floating structure further comprises:
a first solar panel section with multiple floating structures having a bow shaped to displace water as the multiple floating structures are trailed on the water surface (as depicted in Fig. 1-4, a first solar panel section, such as the top row of units 100, with multiple floating structures 10 having a bow, foremost portion, cited to read on the claimed “shaped to displace water as the multiple floating structures are trailed on the water surface” because the cited bow includes a shape structurally capable of displacing water as the cited multiple floating structures 10 are trailed on the water surface); and
a second solar panel section with multiple floating structures, with multiple floating structures (as depicted in Fig. 1-4, a second solar panel section, such as the bottom row of units 100, with multiple floating structures 10); wherein
a first floating structure of the first solar panel section is connected to a first floating structure of the second solar panel section (as depicted in Fig. 1-4, a first floating structure, such as the right most floating structure 10, of the cited first solar panel section is mechanically connected/coupled/attached to a first floating structure, such as the right most floating structure 10, of the cited second solar panel section), and
a second floating structure of the first solar panel section is connected to a second floating structure of the second solar panel section (as depicted in Fig. 1-4, a second floating structure, such as the left most floating structure 10, of the cited first solar panel section is mechanically connected/coupled/attached to a second floating structure, such as the left most floating structure 10, of the cited second solar panel section).
With regard to claim 8, independent claim 5 is obvious over Howlin et al. in view of Bersano et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Howlin et al. discloses wherein
the multiple floating structures are catamaran-style skids with dual pontoons connected by the support structure for load distribution of the solar panel section (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, the multiple floating structures, recall pair of 10 per unit 100, are catamaran-style skids with dual pontoons 10 connected by the cited support structure 5 for load distribution of the solar panel section at each unit 100).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jayaram (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0023506 A1) teaching retractable solar panel sections trailing marine vessel (see Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights