DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the RCE filed on 10/27/2025. Currently, claims 2 and 4-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 3 have been cancelled. Claim 14 has been withdrawn. No new claims have been added.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Priority
The instant application is a CON of application 16/237,517 (now US Patent No. 11,283,393). Application 16/237,517 is a CON of application 14/970,431 (now US Patent No. 10,277,159). Application 14/970,431 is a CIP of application 13/760,965 (now abandoned) and a CIP of application 13/831,496 (now abandoned) and a CIP of application 14/217,427 (now abandoned) and a CIP of application 14/217,288 (now abandoned), and claims priority to provisional application 62/092,793 and priority to foreign application FR 0806419. The earliest support for the claimed subject matter in this instant Office action occurs in provisional application 62/092,793, filed on 12/16/2014.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastening features” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2, 4-12, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McBride et al. (US 20130269181) (‘McBride’) in view of Werner et al. (WO 2012159204) (‘Werner’) and further in view of Ramos et al. (US 4162595) (‘Ramos’).
Claim 2, McBride teaches a system comprising:
a rigid multi-sensor unit (“solar meta-module” 800; Fig. 8) that is constructed off a destination host structure and that can be moved as a preassembled three-dimensionally rigid block to the destination host structure ([0199]; Fig. 8), the rigid multi-sensor unit comprising:
two or more panels including a first panel and a second panel (“an array of a given size and number of solar panels”; [0199]);
two or more longitudinal rails (longitudinal members of frame in the longitudinal dimension 806; Fig. 8) coupled to the two or more panels (Fig. 8), the two or more longitudinal rails having a rigidity integral to the two or more longitudinal rails capable of supporting a first load of the two or more panels during moving of the rigid multi-sensor unit to the destination host structure and after connection to the destination host structure (it is understood that the two or more longitudinal rails have a rigidity integral to the two or more longitudinal rails capable of supporting a first load of the two or more panels during moving of the rigid multi-sensor unit to the destination host structure and after connection to the destination host structure; “[t]he perimeter framing…can extend beyond the repeated structural bays on one or more sides 814 to…provide points for hoisting the frame by sling or other method, and for anchoring the frame to its installation site; [0199]; Fig. 8), the two or more longitudinal rails including a first longitudinal rail (first longitudinal rail of the frame in the longitudinal dimension 806; Fig. 8) and a second longitudinal rail (second longitudinal rail of the frame in the longitudinal dimension 806; Fig. 8), each of the first longitudinal rail and the second longitudinal rail including fastening features (“[t]he perimeter framing…can extend beyond the repeated structural bays on one or more sides 814; [0199]; Fig. 8; alternatively fastening features comprising a “coupling mechanism” for attaching to the host structure [0018]; [0215]-[0216]) located at fastening points (“points for hoisting the frame by sling or other method” [0199]; Fig. 8; alternatively, points at which the fastening features are located [0018]; [0215]-[0216]) on each of the first longitudinal rail and the second longitudinal rail (it is understood that the fastening points can be located on each of the first longitudinal rail and the second longitudinal rail; Fig. 8), the fastening features for attaching the two or more longitudinal rails to the destination host structure (“for anchoring the frame to its installation site” [0199]; Fig. 8); and
two or more transversal beams (transverse members of frame in the transverse dimension 808; Fig. 8) coupled to the two or more longitudinal rails (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “coupled” as exceedingly broadly claimed, the two or more transversal beams are coupled to the two or more longitudinal rails to form the perimeter frame [0199]; Fig. 8), the two or more transversal beams having a rigidity integral to the two or more transversal beams capable of supporting a second load of the two or more longitudinal rails and the two or more panels during the moving of the rigid multi-sensor unit to the destination host structure (it is understood that the two or more transversal beams having a rigidity integral to the two or more transversal beams capable of supporting a second load of the two or more longitudinal rails and the two or more panels during the moving of the rigid multi-sensor unit to the destination host structure; “[t]he perimeter framing…can extend beyond the repeated structural bays on one or more sides 814 to…provide points for hoisting the frame by sling or other method, and for anchoring the frame to its installation site; [0199]; Fig. 8), the two or more transversal beams including:
a first transversal beam (first transversal beam of the perimeter frame in the transverse direction 808; [0199]; Fig. 8), wherein a first point of the first transversal beam is attached to a first point of the first longitudinal rail at a first junction point (first junction point at the connection of the first transversal beam to the first longitudinal rail; Fig. 8), and wherein a second point of the first transversal beam is attached to a first point of the second longitudinal rail at a second junction point (second junction point at the connection of the first transversal beam to the second longitudinal rail; Fig. 8); and
a second transversal beam (first transversal beam of the perimeter frame in the transverse direction 808; [0199]; Fig. 8), wherein a first point of the second transversal beam is attached to a second point of the first longitudinal rail at a third junction point (third junction point at the connection of the second transversal beam to the first longitudinal rail; Fig. 8), and wherein a second point of the second transversal beam is attached to a second point of the second longitudinal rail at a fourth junction point (fourth junction point at the connection of the second transversal beam to the second longitudinal rail; Fig. 8);
the two or more panels, the two or more longitudinal rails and the two or more traversal beams coupled together to render the rigid multi-sensor unit three-dimensionally rigid to be capable of being independently lifted as a preassembled three-dimensionally rigid block to the destination host structure (it is understood that the two or more panels, the two or more longitudinal rails and the two or more traversal beams are coupled together to render the rigid multi-sensor unit three-dimensionally rigid to be capable of being independently lifted as a preassembled three-dimensionally rigid block to the destination host structure; [0199]; Fig. 8.
McBride’s embodiment of Fig. 8 does not teach the two or more transversal beams being coupled to the two or more longitudinal rails being such that the two or more transversal beams are couple below the two or more longitudinal rails, the fastening points being at different locations than the first and second junction points, the fastening points being at different locations than the third and fourth junction points, and the two or more longitudinal rails including permanent or temporary lifting features for lifting the rigid-multi-sensor unit as the preassembled three-dimensionally rigid block to the destination host structure, the lifting features being different than the fastening features.
However, McBride’s embodiment of Fig. 5 teaches lifting solar module 502 using a sling 504 at fastening points “near” four corners of the frame of the module [0194]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try forming the fastening points of the embodiment of Fig. 8 being at different locations than the first and second junction points, and at different locations than the third and fourth junction points, with the reasonable expectation of success of attaching the sling to portions of the frame in a known manner to lift the preassembled three-dimensionally rigid block to the destination host structure without interfering with the junction points and while preventing the preassembled three-dimensionally rigid block from falling off the sling, since the embodiments of Figs. 5 and 8 were treated as obvious variants of one another.
McBride’s embodiment of Fig. 5 further teaches longitudinal rails including permanent or temporary lifting features for lifting the rigid multi-sensor unit as the preassembled three-dimensionally rigid block to the destination host structure (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the edges of the longitudinal rails constitute lifting features, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5), the lifting features being different than the fastening features (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the fastening features can be considered at various locations of the perimeter frame, “[t]he perimeter framing can extend beyond the repeated structural bays on one or more sides 814 to allow for mounting of electrical connectors and to provide points for hoisting the frame by sling or other method, and for anchoring the frame to its installation site” [0199], while the lifting features can be considered to be at different locations on the perimeter frame, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5).
McBride further teaches connection points or lifting points (e.g., slots, ringbolts, strapping points) for moving the rigid multi-sensor unit [0009].
McBride further teaches the fastening points including commercially available hardware as well as engineered fittings [0216].
McBride further teaches coupling the two or more transversal beams to the two or more longitudinal rails by rigid moment connections, which may include welding (embodiment of Fig. 9 [0200]).
Werner teaches a system, comprising two or more transversal beams 206 coupled below two or more longitudinal rails 218 (Fig. 2) through any suitable process including welding (“welding” [00031]-[00032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify McBride’s coupling of the two or more transversal beams to the two or more longitudinal rails, such that the two or more transversal beams are coupled below the two or more longitudinal rails, with the reasonable expectation of coupling the transversal beams to the longitudinal rails in a known manner, using a known technique that would provide sufficient rigidity to the two or more transversal beams integral with the two or more transversal beams to support the second load of the two or more longitudinal rails and the two or more panels during moving of the rigid multi-sensor unit to the destination host structure. The examiner further notes that such arrangement would provide additional space to allow for mounting of electrical connectors (McBride [0199]).
In the event that applicant disagrees that the edges of McBride constitute lifting features, the examiner takes the position that such lifting features are notoriously old and well known in the art. Ramos teaches lifting rings (each labeled 99; Figs. 6-8) that are welded or otherwise secured to each module at critical lifting points to facilitate erection (col. 6, lines 42-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try incorporating the teaching of Ramos with that of McBride, such that the two or more longitudinal rails include permanent or temporary lifting features for lifting the rigid-multi-sensor unit as the preassembled three-dimensionally rigid block to the destination host structure, the lifting features being different than the fastening features, with the reasonable expectation of success of utilizing a known mechanical device to connect a lifting device to a solar panel assembly for erection, since such lifting features are known in the art.
Claim 4, McBride further teaches wherein at least one panel of the two or more panels is a solar panel [0199].
Claim 5, McBride further teaches wherein the multi-senor unit comprises at least one of a waterproof barrier, a clamp, a spreader beam, a spreader leg, a load spreader, a column, a dressing element, a finishing element, an active panel, a structural component, a sheathing system, a sensor, a thermal insulation layer, a lower face, an actuator, a grille, a board, a drip former, a fastener, a fixing member, an attachment component, a production component, a data component, a data set, a ventilation channel, a cable, a cable tray, a flashing system, a waterproof curtain, an intelligent system, a drive system, a control system, a brake system, and a communication system (it is understood that the multi-sensor unit comprises a lower face on the lower side of 800, or alternatively a cable [0199], [0216]).
Claim 6, as modified above, the combination of McBride, Werner and Ramos teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the multi-sensor unit is installed in lieu of a roof or a facade of a structure (Ramos col. 2, lines 30-35).
Claim 7, McBride further teaches wherein the multi-sensor unit is immobile (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, when the multi-sensor unit is installed on the host structure, the multi-sensor unit is fixed and thus is mobile, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8).
Claim 8, McBride further teaches wherein the multi-sensor unit is mobile (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the multi-sensor unit is capable of being moved as a unit to various installation sites, such as a rooftop, pole mount or rack by a boom truck, thus, the multi-sensor unit is mobile, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8).
Claim 10, McBride further teaches wherein the multi-sensor unit is installed on an existing roof or facade or structure (rooftop [0009]).
Claim 11, McBride further teaches wherein the multi-sensor unit includes intelligent systems that allow the multi-sensor unit to interact with people, an environment, or other systems (“intelligent optimizers” [0216]).
Claim 12, McBride further teaches wherein the multi-sensor unit comprises at least one mobile part (external controller [0009], or devices for control and/or monitoring [0212], or remote control [0246]).
Claim 15, McBride further teaches wherein the destination host structure comprises a building [0009].
Claim 17, McBride further teaches wherein the two or more panels comprise at least two or more solar panels [0199].
Claim 18, McBride further teaches wherein the two or more panels comprise any of one or more heating panels and electrical panels (electric [0009]; [0199]).
Claim 19, McBride further teaches wherein the two or more longitudinal rails comprise substantially parallel rails (Fig. 8).
Claim 20, McBride further teaches wherein the first point of the first transversal beam is a first top point of the first transversal beam (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first transversal beam is not limited to inherently one top point and may comprise more than one top point, and the point at which the first transversal beam is attached to the first longitudinal rail constitutes a first top point of the first transversal beam, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8), and the second point of the first transversal beam is a second top point of the first transversal beam (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first transversal beam is not limited to inherently one top point and may comprise more than one top point, and the point at which the first transversal beam is attached to the second longitudinal rail constitutes a second top point of the first transversal beam, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8); and wherein the first point of the second transversal beam is a first top point of the second transversal beam (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second transversal beam is not limited to inherently one top point and may comprise more than one top point, and the point at which the second transversal beam is attached to the first longitudinal rail constitutes a first top point of the second transversal beam, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8), and the second point of the second transversal beam is a second top point of the second transversal beam (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second transversal beam is not limited to inherently one top point and may comprise more than one top point, and the point at which the second transversal beam is attached to the second longitudinal rail constitutes a second top point of the second transversal beam, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McBride et al. (US 20130269181) (‘McBride’) in view of Werner et al. (US 2012159204) (‘Werner’) in view of Ramos et al. (US 4162595) (‘Ramos’) as above and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20100235206) (‘Miller’).
Claim 13, McBride further teaches installing the rigid multi-sensor unit at various types of installation sites (McBride [0194], [0216]). McBride is silent as to the multi-sensor unit creating a space below it that can be modified by actuators or active components. However, Miller teaches a multi-sensor unit that creates a space below it that can be modified by actuators or active components (Miller [0059]-[0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming or using the multi-sensor unit such that it creates a space below it that can be modified by actuators or active components, with the reasonable expectation of success of using the system to provide an energy-efficient or energy-neutral or energy positive building, or to self-regulate to different ambient environments or be tailored to specific climate environments or needs of its users (Miller [0060]).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McBride et al. (US 20130269181) (‘McBride’) in view of Werner et al. (US 2012159204) (‘Werner’) in view of Ramos et al. (US 4162595) (‘Ramos’) as above and further in view of Scanlon (US 20110073161).
Claim 16, McBride, Werner and Ramos teach all the limitations of claim 2 as above. McBride does not describe the destination host structure as a carport. However, Scanlon teaches a system comprising a multi-sensor unit being installed on a destination host structure, wherein the destination host structure comprises a carport (Fig. 9B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the destination host structure comprising a carport, with the reasonable expectation of utilizing the multi-sensor unit in a variety of different destination structures, such as one in which a car could be parked.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 4-13 and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635