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/Restrictions
Claim 10-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/26/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I encompassing Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cleaning system” in Claims 1-9, “wind-displaced cleaning elements” in Claims 1 and 2, “cleaning device” in Claims 1 and 4, “elongated elements” in Claim 3, and “negative component” in Claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. CN 104034059 A (hereafter Yu et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu et al. anticipates:
1. A cleaning system (brush belt solar water heater cleaning) with interchangeable wind-displaced cleaning elements (brush-type dust cleaning belts 7) for cleaning one or more solar collector (assembly comprising collecting plate 4, insulating layer 2 and heat absorbing pipe 3), the system comprising:
(a) a pair of fixtures (channels of outer frame 1 for mounting clips 6), attached to or integrated with one or more solar collector at spaced-apart locations (top and bottom shown in Figure 2), each of said fixtures having a first part (thickest rib, Figure 2) of an attachment configuration (best shown in Figure 2); and
(b) a cleaning device (cleaning belt 7) comprising a wind-displaceable cleaning element terminating (body of cleaning belt 7) at each end in a clip (clip 6) having a second part (flange for mounting fixing bolt 5) of an attachment configuration (tightening fixing bolt 5 would allow attachment) configured so as to define together with said first part of an attachment configuration a releasable attachment configuration (loosening fixing bolt 5 would allow releasement),
such that the cleaning device is deployable by attaching each clip to a corresponding one of said fixtures and is removable for replacement by detaching the attachment configuration for each clip, thereby facilitating replacement of the cleaning device by another similar cleaning device (fixing bolt 5 can be removed, to reposition or remove clip 6 allowing replacement of cleaning belt 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Yu et al. anticipates:
4. The cleaning system of claim 1, wherein the releasable attachment configuration (loosening fixing bolt 5 would allow releasement) is disengaged by motion of said clip relative to said fixture (channels of outer frame 1 for mounting clips 6) in a release direction (shown and labeled in zoomed in Figure 2 below), and wherein, when the cleaning device (cleaning belt 7) is deployed, tension in the cleaning device acts on the clips in a direction (shown and labeled in zoomed in Figure 2 below) which has a negative component along said release direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Yu et al. anticipates:
5. The cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said fixtures (channels of outer frame 1 for mounting clips 6) are attached to (shown in Figure 2) or integrated with side surfaces of the solar collector (assembly comprising collecting plate 4, insulating layer 2 and heat absorbing pipe 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Yu et al. anticipates:
6. The cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said fixtures (channels of outer frame 1 for mounting clips 6) are attached to or integrated with (shown in Figure 2) rear surfaces of the solar collector (assembly comprising collecting plate 4, insulating layer 2 and heat absorbing pipe 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Yu et al. anticipates:
9. The cleaning system of claim 1, wherein each of said clips (clip 6) comprises a projecting handle (labeled in attached zoomed in Figure 2 below) configured to facilitate holding of said clips by a holding tool during attachment to, and detachment from, said fixture (identified feature would facilitate holding as claimed).
PNG
media_image2.png
657
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. CN 104034059 A (hereafter Yu et al.) in view of Sefi US 2019/0280645 (hereafter Sefi) and Hirsh US 2,212,862 (hereafter Hirsh).
Regarding Claim 2, Yu et al. teaches:
2. The cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said wind-displaceable cleaning element (body of cleaning belt 7) is formed at least in part from a ribbon (see discussion below), and wherein each of said clips comprises a ribbon gripper gripping a corresponding end of said wind-displaceable cleaning element (see discussion below).
Yu et al. discloses wind-displaceable cleaning elements that are formed as a rope with projecting bristles with both ends connected to clips 6 using an undisclosed gripping feature corresponding to each end. Yu et al. does not disclose a wind-displaceable cleaning element that is formed at least in part from a ribbon. The reference Sefi discloses wind-displaceable cleaning elements that are formed as a strip as shown in Figures 5, 8A, and 8B, with both ribbon shaped ends anchored to the sides of the solar panels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rope-shaped wind-displaceable cleaning elements of Yu et al. to be strips with ribbon shaped ends as taught by Sefi with the motivation to use proven shape know in the prior art that would improve the wind agitation.
That being said, the obvious modification would require the structure of the clip to be modified to effectively grip the ribbon shape end. The reference Hirsh discloses in Figure 7 a buckle structure with three adjacent elongated elements 1, 3, and 3’ defining two ribbon-gripping slots 7 and 7’ open at opposite ends. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yu et al. clip to include structure as taught by Hirsh that is specifically designed to secure ribbon shaped straps with the motivation to use proven structure that allows for ribbon shaped material to be secured and adjustable to control the final length.
PNG
media_image3.png
1180
1341
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Yu et al. teaches:
3. The cleaning system of claim 2, wherein said ribbon gripper comprises three adjacent elongated elements (labeled in Examiner modified combined device below) defining between them two ribbon-gripping slots (labeled in Examiner modified combined device below), a first of said slots being open at a first end and a second of said slots being open at a second end opposite from said first end (labeled and shown in Examiner modified combined device below).
PNG
media_image4.png
486
635
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. CN 104034059 A (hereafter Yu et al.) in view of common knowledge.
Regarding Claim 7, Yu et al. teaches:
7. The cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said attachment configuration (tightening fixing bolt 5 would allow attachment) is configured to provide angular freedom of motion (see discussion below) of said clip (clip 6) when attached to said fixture (channels of outer frame 1 for mounting clips 6).
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the clip 6 is intended to be fully inserted on the rib of outer frame to create a parallel mounting arrangement. However, the mounting configuration would allow a user to partially insert the clip with an angular adjustment prior to tightening the fixing bolt 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious common knowledge to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, without modification, install the clip 6 with an angular freedom of motion as desired by the user and securing the clip at a desired angle by tightening the fixing bolt 5.
Regarding Claim 8, Yu et al. teaches:
8. The cleaning system of claim 7, wherein said second part (flange for mounting fixing bolt 5) of the attachment configuration (tightening fixing bolt 5 would allow attachment) includes a closed loop (threaded hole for receiving fixing bolt 5) that is engaged by said first part (thickest rib, Figure 2) of the attachment configuration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of solar panel cleaners and clips for webbing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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 KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723