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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Fig. 1: Roman numeral “III” overlaps the lines of the drawings making it difficult to read.
Fig. 2: The roman numerals found in the figure are light and difficult to read.
Figs. 3-10 and 13- 48: The shading of the figures are dark and the line thicknesses are faint making it difficult to distinguish the surfaces of the elements.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Lines 9-11 and 17 of claim, there appear to be no significance for each instance of the right parenthesis. Examiner suggests removing the right parenthesis from the claims. Lines 11 and 17 of the claim, it appears the limitation “northern rack” should be --said northern rack—for consistency of the claim language. Line 14 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the inclined support member” should be --the one or more inclined support members-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 16 of the claim, it appears that the limitation “said support part” should be --said horizontal support part-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 27 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beams” is not consistent with the previously defined abbreviation. Lines 34 and 40 of the claim, it appears the limitation “roof beam” should be --said roof beam-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 2: Line 18 of the claim, it appears the limitation “roof beam-facia connection means” should be --said roof beam-facia connection means-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 19 of the claim, it appears the limitation “column-beam connection means” should be --said column-beam connection beams-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 19 of the claim, it appears the limitation “column-purlin connection means” should be --said column-purlin connection beams-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 3: Line 7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the end part” should be --the one end part-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 18 of the claim, it appears “portal frame, box frame, and pile frame” should be --said portal frame, said box frame and said pile frame-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 4: Line 17 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said certain position” should be --said certain positions-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard claim 6: Lines 41-42 of the claim, there appears to be no significance for use of quotations. Lines 41-43 of the claim, it appears “"rack beam-facia bracket", "roof beam-facia bracket", "column-purlin bracket", and "beam-beam superposition bracket", column-beam bracket, and main member joint bracket” should be "the rack beam-facia bracket, the roof beam-facia bracket, the column-purlin bracket, the beam-beam superposition bracket, the column-beam bracket, and the main member joint bracket” for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 8: Line 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the building” should be --the building structure-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 9: Lines 55 and 102-103 of the claim, it appears the phrase “the said” should be --the-- or --said--. Line 97 of the claim, it appears “clean up the site” should be --clean up on the site--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-9 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.
Examiner submits that the claims are replete with inconsistent and indefinite language. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in the identifying and correcting such language. Non-limiting examples are as follows:
With regard to claim 1: Lines 2 and 34 of the claim, the limitation “the solar workspace” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 5 of the claim, the abbreviation ‘rack beam pairs’ is misleading as it implies multiple pairs when the scope of the claim can comprise a singular pair. Lines 5-6 of the claim, it’s unclear it the limitation “solar panels” is referencing the previously recited solar energy panel. Lines 7, 32, 34 and 40 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Examiner notes that the recitation does not employ the abbreviation previously recited. Line 9 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beam pair” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 9 of the claim, the limitation “the south side” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 10 of the claim, the limitation “the north side” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 13 of the claim, the limitation “the plurality of rack beam pairs” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 21 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a vertical column” is referencing the previously recited at least one vertical member. For the purpose of examination, the at least one vertical member comprises a vertical column. Line 24 of the claim, the limitation “the elevation frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 24 of the claim, the limitation “the inner subspace” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 27 of the claim, the abbreviation “flat roofs” is misleading as it implies multiple flat roofs when the scope of claim can comprise a single polygonal horizontal flat roof. Line 29 of the claim, the limitation “said roof beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 29 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 31 of the claim, the limitation “the bottom part” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 34 of the claim, the limitation “the flat roof” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 45-46 of the claim, the abbreviation “suitable orientation and inclination angle” is not an actual abbreviation. It’s unclear if the orientation and inclination is being claimed. Further, it’s unclear as to what is considered a suitable orientation and inclination angle (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 2: Line 1 of the claim, the recitation of “The solar rack of claim 1” is improper and renders claim indefinite as the claim is directed to an element of claim 1. Accordingly, the scope of the claim 1 does not appear to be further limited or defined. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --The solar energy system of claim 1--. Line 1 of the claim, the term "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Line 7 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 8 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “adjacent rack beams” is referencing the previously recited plurality of rack beams. Lines 7, 9 and 11 of the claim, it’s unclear as to what characteristics or attributes an element must possess to be considered similar (emphasis added). Lines 9 and 13 of the claim, the limitation “said roof beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 11 of the claim, the limitation “said bracing beams” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 11 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “purlins” is referencing the previously purlin. Line 14 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “column-beam connection means” is referencing the previously recited column-beam connection means of claim 1. Lines 19-20 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “A multipurpose solar energy system” is referencing the previously recited multipurpose solar energy system of claim 1. Lines 19-20 of the claim, it’s unclear as to what elements are being directly or indirectly connected.
With regard to claim 3: Line 1 of the claim, the recitation of “The elevation frame of claim 2” is improper and renders claim indefinite as the claim is directed to an element of claim 2. Accordingly, the scope of the claim 2 does not appear to be further limited or defined. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --The solar energy system of claim 2--. Line 1 of the claim, the limitation “said elevation frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 1 of the claim, the term "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it’s unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Line 3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a column” is referencing the previously recited columns of claim 1. Line 4 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a roof beam” is referencing the previously recited roof beams of claim 1. Lines 5, 8, 11 and 14 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “column-beam connection means” is referencing the previously recited column-beam connection means. Lines 6, 11 and 12-13 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “two vertical members” is referencing the previously recited vertical members. Line 7 of the claim, it’s unclear if limitation “one horizontal member” is referencing the previously horizontal member. Line 9 of the claim, the limitation “the two end parts” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 9-10 and 13 of the claim, the limitation “the floor beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 10 of the claim, it’s unclear if limitation “two horizontal members” is referencing one of the previously horizontal members. Lines 10-11 of the claim, the limitation “the… bottom parts of the columns” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 12 of the claim, the limitation “the two end portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 13-14 of the claim, the limitation “the… intermediate portions of the columns” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 17 of the claim, the term "optional" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Line 20 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “floor beams” is referencing the previously recited floor beams.
With regard to claim 4: Line 1 of the claim, the recitation of “The main member of claim 3” is improper and renders claim indefinite as the claim is directed to an element of claim 3. Accordingly, the scope of the claim 3 does not appear to be further limited or defined. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --The solar energy system of claim 3--. Line 1 of the claim, the term "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Line 2 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “process” is referencing the previously recited roll forming process found in claim 1. Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “the forming process” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 8 of the claim, the limitation “the cross-sectional shape” lacks sufficient antecedent. Note that the main member is not limited to a singular cross-section. Lines 17-18 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “not more than 180 degrees” found in parenthesis is being positively claimed or not.
With regard to claim 5: Line 1 of claim, the limitation “Claim 4” is incomplete. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed --The solar energy system of claim 4--. Line 2 of the claim, it’s unclear as to what characteristics or attributes an element must possess to be considered similar (emphasis added). Line 4 of the claim, the limitation “the back surfaces” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Line 4 of the claim, the limitation “the two main members of the one ply” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 7 and 12 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “rack beams” is referencing the previously recited rack beams. Lines 7-8 of the claim, the limitation “said one or said two ply main member pairs of rack beams” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Line 9 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “rack beam” is referencing the previously recited rack beams. Line 10 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beam pair” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 11 and 24 of the claim, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Line 12 of the claim, the limitation “said pair of cross struts” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 14 of the claim, the limitation “said one or two layers of main members” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 14-17 of the claim, the “abbreviations” do not appear to appear to be abbreviations, but instead are alternative terminology that is confusing at it’s unclear if it’s being positively claimed. Line 16 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “main members” is referencing the previously recited main member. Line 17-18 of the claim, the limitation the compound structure lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 19 of the claim, the limitation “said elevation frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 19 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “columns” is referencing the previously recited columns. Line 19 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “roof beams” is referencing the previously recited roof beams. Lines 19-21 of the claim, the limitation “said compound member pairs” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 20, 21 and 29 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “main member” is referencing the previously recited main members. Line 25 of the claim, the limitation “said pair of cross struts” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 25 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “main member” is referencing one of the previously recited main members. Lines 25-26 of the claim, the limitation “their back surfaces” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 27-28 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beam pair” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 28 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “rack beam” is referencing one of the previously recited rack beams. Line 28 of the claim, the limitation “said elevation frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 29-30 of the claim, the limitation “said solar workpiece” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 6: Lines 1-2 of the claim, the recitation of “The rack beam-facia connection means, roof beam-facia connection means, column-purlin connection means, and beam-beam superposition connection means of claim 5” is improper and renders claim indefinite as the claim is directed to specific elements of claim 5. Accordingly, the scope of the claim 5 does not appear to be further limited or defined. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --The solar energy system of claim 5--. The scope of the claim is unclear. Examiner notes that the claim is replete with inconsistent and indefinite language. The claim appears to positively recite elements already recited in previously claims. Non-limiting examples include “two main members” in line 4 of the claim or a “main member” in line 6 of the claim. Line 9 of the claim, the limitation “said connection means” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 10 of the claim, the limitation “the connection part” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 13 of the claim, the limitation “the formation means” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 18 of the claim, the limitation “the sheet metal fabrication” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 24 of the claim, the limitation “the form of said merging bracket” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 25 of the claim, the limitation “the corresponding brackets” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 27 and 44-45 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a single bracket” and “a double bracket” are referencing the previously recited single bracket and double bracket. Lines 33-40 of the claim, it’s unclear as to how the respective bracket are applied to respective connection means as recited. As described in [0224]-[0232] of the original specification, the respective brackets are the respective connection means. Lines 43-44 of the claim, the limitation “the overlapping planes” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 7: Line 1 of the claim, the recitation of “The elevation frame of claim 6” is improper and renders claim indefinite as the claim is directed to an element of claim 6. Accordingly, the scope of the claim 6 does not appear to be further limited or defined. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --The solar energy system of claim 6--. Lines 1, 13, 15, 17 and 44 of the claim, the term "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Line 3 of the claim, the limitation “said elevation frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “said cross-sectional frames” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 6 of the claim, the limitation “the ends” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 6 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “adjacent roof beams” is referencing the previously roof beams. Line 7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “adjacent columns” is referencing the previously recited columns, Line 7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “other bracing beams” is referencing the previously recited bracing beams. Examiner notes that the claim is replete with inconsistent and indefinite language. The claim appears to positively recite elements already recited in previously claims. Non-limiting examples include “two main members” in line 4 of the claim or a “main member” in line 6 of the claim. Line 22 of the claim, the limitation “said CONSECUENT BUILDING TYPE” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it’s unclear as to significance of having all the letters of the limitation being capitalized. Line 41 of the claim, the limitation “the mixed support method” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 8: Line 1 of claim, the limitation “Claim 7” is incomplete. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed --The solar energy system of claim 7--. Line 1 of the claim, the limitation “said solar workpiece” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 1-2 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “an earth’s surface” is referencing the previously recited earth’s surface. Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “the original primary use” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 6 of the claim, the limitations “internal facilities” and “external installations” found in parenthesis each implies a structure. It’s unclear if these structures are being positively claimed. Lines 11 and 20 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation found in parenthesis is being positively claimed. Line 14 of the claim, the limitation “said exterior facilities” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 34 of the claim, the limitation “said separate utility facilities” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 37 of the claim, the limitation “the space” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 39 of the claim, the limitation “said space” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 39 of the claim, the term "if" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 9: Line 7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a given object” is referencing the previously recited object. Line 10 of the claim, it’s unclear as to what would be considered a suitable orientation and inclination angle (emphasis added). Line 11 of the calm, the limitation “the outer extent” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 11 and 13-15 of the claim, the limitation “said roof beams” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 12-13 of the claim, the abbreviation “flat roofs” is misleading as it implies multiple flat roofs when the scope of claim can comprise a single polygonal horizontal flat roof. Lines 13, 30 and 32-33 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beam(s)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 14 and 24 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beam pairs” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 16 and 19 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beam pair” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 16 of the claim, the limitation “the solar panels” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 19 of the claim, the limitation “the inclined support member” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 21 of the claim it’s unclear if the subject matter within the parenthesis is being claimed. Line 25 of the claim, the limitation “sufficiently spaced” is unclear. It’s not readily clear as to the degree of spacing that must be achieved to be considered sufficient (emphasis added). Line 26 of the claim, the limitation “the solar panels” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 27 and 31-32 of the claim, the limitation “said elevation frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 27 of the claim, the limitation “the flat roof” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 28 of the claim, the limitation “said rack beams” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 28 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “roof beams” is referencing the previously recited roof beams. Line 30 of the claim, the limitation “the acute angle of intersection” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 30 and 32 of the claim, the limitation “said roof beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 31 and 33 of the claim, the limitation “said bracing beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 34 of the claim, the limitation “said design step” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 34-35 of the claim, the limitation “the layout of the multi-use solar system” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 37-38 of the claim, the limitation “the footing part of said pole” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 39 and 41 of the claim, the limitation “the framing settlement means” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 41 and 43 of the claim, the limitation “the layout” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 42 of the claim, the limitation “said poles” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 43 of the claim, the limitation “the detailed design” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 44-45 of the claim, the limitation “the seismic design standards and road transportation regulations” lacks sufficient antecedent. Further, it’s unclear as to what specific standards and regulations are being referenced. Line 46 of the claim, the limitation “the factory fabrication stage” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 46-47 of the claim, the limitation “the components of said solar rack and base frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 48 of the claim, the limitation “the transportation restrictions” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 48 and 60 of the claim, the limitation “the Road Traffic Act” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it’s unclear as to what specific standards and regulations are being referenced. Lines 49 of the claim, the limitations “the factory” and “the site” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 49-50 of the claim, the limitation “the main members of said solar rack” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 50 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “base frame” is referencing the previously recited base frame. Line 51 of the claim, it’s unclear to what value the scale must be to be considered acceptable (emphasis added). Line 53 of the claim, the limitation “the main member” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 53-54 and 57 of the claim, the limitation “the connection means” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 54 of the claim, the elimination “said elevation frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 54 of the claim, the limitation “the horizontal members” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 55 of the claim, the limitation “said base frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 57 of the claim, the limitation “the main member” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 58 of the claim, the limitation “the site transportation stage” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 58 of the claim, the limitation “the component” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 61 of the claim, the limitation “said components” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 62 of the claim, the limitation “said on-site transportation stage” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 64 and 67-68 of the claim, the limitation “the construction means” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 66-67 and 70 of the claim, the limitation “the framing settlement means” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 69 of the claim, the limitation “the components” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 70 of the claim, the limitation “the elevating means” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 71 of the claim, the limitation “said solar rack” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 72 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “solar panels” is referencing the previously recited solar panel. Line 72 of the claim, the limitation “the permitted scale” lacks sufficient antecedent. Further, it’s unclear to how “the permitted scale” is determined. Lines 73-74 and 77 of the claim, the limitation “said elevation frames” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 73 of the claim, the limitation “said base frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 74 of the claim, the limitation “said elevated support member” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 75 of the claim, the limitation “said erecting support member” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 75 of the claim, the limitation “said foundation” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 76 of the claim, the limitation “the assembly of said base frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 76 of the claim, the limitation “the main members” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 77 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “roof beams” is referencing the previously recited roof beams. Lines 78 and 86 of the claim, the limitation “the above design steps” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 79 of the claim, the limitation “the end of adjacent roof beams” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it’s unclear if the “adjacent roof beams” is referencing the previously recited roof beams. Line 80 of the claim, the limitation “said roof beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 80 of the claim, the limitation “said bracing beam” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 84 of the claim, the limitation “said solar rack” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 84 of the claim, the limitation “said base frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 85 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “rack beams” is referencing the previously recited rack beams. Line 87 of the claim, the limitation “said solar rack” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 87 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “solar panels” is referencing the previously recited solar panel. Line 89 of the claim, the limitation “said inclined support member” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 91 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a multipurpose solar energy system” is referencing the previously recited multipurpose solar energy system. Line 92 of the claim, the limitation “said on-site assembly step” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 93 of the claim, the limitation “the remaining portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 93-93 of the claim, the limitation “the structure” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 94 of the claim, the limitation “the original primary use” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 95 of the claim, the limitation “the primary use” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 96 of the claim, the limitation “said means of construction” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 96-97 of the claim, the limitation “the site” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Line 98 of the claim, the limitation “the power lines” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Line 98 of the claim, the limitation “the electricity transaction” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 98-99 of the claim, the limitation “the Electricity Business Act and other applicable laws and regulations” renders the claim indefinite because it’s unclear as to what specific standards, laws and regulations are being referenced. Line 100 of the claim, the limitation “the necessary electrical facilities” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Further, it’s unclear as to what is considered necessary electrical facilities (emphasis added). Line 102 of the claim, the limitation “safety and performance certifications from the Authority” lack sufficient antecedent basis. It’s unclear as to what specific safety and performance certifications are being referenced. Further, it’s unclear as to what Authority is being referenced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1: The combination of all the elements of the claimed energy system comprising solar energy panels built on an object on an earth’s surface and utilizing a subspace, the solar workpiece forming a lattice structure including a solar rack on top and a base frame below; wherein the solar rack includes a plurality of rack beams forming one or more pairs and one or more inclined support members; one of more inclined support members comprising a horizontal support part and a slope part having a predetermined inclination angle, wherein the horizontal support part is fixed in an orthogonal shape across a plane above the southern rack beam and the northern rack beam; and the base frame comprising a plurality of elevation frames and footing part is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
With regard to claim 9: The combination of all the steps of the claimed method for a multipurpose solar energy system including a construction planning step, a factory fabrication stage, site transportation stage, on-site assembly stage, and a step of completing construction of the multipurpose solar energy system is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
Examiner notes that allowability of the claims are subject to reconsideration should the scope of the claims change.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited is directed to solar energy systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633