DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 are cancelled.
Claims 4-13 are pending.
Response to Amendment
In addition, claim 10 is listed as amended. However, no amendments appear to be provided.
Specification
At the outset, it is noted that Applicant’s 3/9/26 Specification does not constitute new matter, as what is described is shown in at least, for example, Fig. 3B, as originally filed.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites, “causing such that” in line 8-9, and it appears intended to recite, “such that.” 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 4-9 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.
Re claim 4, claim 4 recites, “the foot configured to engage a roof surface in response to the foot being pulled through the snap housing” in the last 2 lines. It is unclear how the foot is pulled through the snap housing, or is capable of doing so, as the foot appears to be larger in diameter than any opening in the snap housing. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the foot configured to engage a roof surface in response to the shaft being pulled through the snap housing” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 5-9 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braunstein et al (“Braunstein”) (US 2015/0180404) in view of Nakajima (US 2008/0031703).
Re claim 4 as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 above, Braunstein discloses a stabilization assembly (Fig. 5 101), comprising:
a shaft (104);
a foot (108) coupled to a first end (top end of 104, as “coupled to” requires no particular disposition) the shaft (104); and
a snap housing (105) comprising body (117), a snap plate (115, 120), and a boss (see examiner comments; where “boss” is defined, per Merriam-Webster, as “a protuberant part or body”), the snap plate (115, 120) disposed on a first end (either end of 117) of the body (117) to the snap housing (105) disposed a second end (bottom end of 104) on the shaft (104), the snap plate (115, 120) comprising a first deformable arm (115a) and a second deformable arm (115b) that configured to removably installable within (Fig. 4A) a solar panel coupling (103), the boss (see examiner comments) extending away from (vertically) the body (117) and configured to engage (Fig. 9D) the solar panel coupling (103), wherein the shaft (104) translates through (104 being a threaded bolt) the snap housing (105) such that a distance between the snap housing (105) and the foot (108) is adjustable ([0086]),
the foot (108) is configured to engage a roof surface (108 is capable of engaging a roof surface, as this is a statement of intended use) in response to the foot (108; interpreted as shaft 104) being pulled through (as modified below) the snap housing (105),
but fails to disclose the shaft comprising a plurality of first teeth, the foot being adjustable by pulling the first teeth through the snap plate.
However, Nakajima discloses the shaft (12) comprising a plurality of first teeth (18), the foot (Braunstein: 108) being adjustable (Braunstein: [0086]; Nakajima [0081] discloses removal, and as such, is capable of adjustment) by pulling the first teeth (18) through the snap plate (P1/P2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilization assembly of Braunstein with the shaft comprising a plurality of first teeth, the foot being adjustable by pulling the first teeth through the snap plate as disclosed by Nakajima in order to connect components together in a tool-less manner via a single motion and in a removable manner ([0004]). In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (threaded connection) for another (toothed connections) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
It should further be noted that the language “pulling” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 5, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 4, wherein a solar panel coupling (103) is coupled to the snap plate (115, 120), with a distance between the foot (108) and the solar panel coupling 9103) being adjustable ([0087]).
Re claim 6, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 5, comprising: a solar panel coupling (103) comprising a top portion (proximate 113) and a bottom portion (proximate 116), the bottom portion defining a first opening (between 116), the solar panel coupling (103) is configured to support a solar panel (112), wherein the snap housing (105) is disposed between (at least partially) the solar panel coupling (103) and the snap plate (115, 120), and wherein the shaft (104) is installable through a first hole (113) defined in the solar panel coupling (103).
Re claim 7, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 6, wherein the stabilization assembly (101) is configured to stabilize a solar panel coupling (103) to aid in installation of solar panels (112).
Re claim 8, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 6, wherein at least one of the shaft (104) and foot (108) are configured to create a loaded engagement between (Fig. 9G) the solar panel coupling (103) and a roof surface (102, at least via 114), in response to being installed (Fig. 1) on the roof surface (102).
Re claim 10, Braunstein discloses a stabilization assembly (Fig. 5 101), comprising:
a shaft (104);
a foot (108) operatively coupled to a first end (top end of 104, as “coupled” requires no particular disposition) of the shaft (104); and
snap housing (105) comprising body (117), a snap plate (115, 120) and a boss (see examiner comments), the snap plate (115, 120) disposed on a first end (either end of 117) of the body (117), the snap plate (117) and the snap housing (105) disposed around the shaft (104) on a second end (bottom end of 104) of the shaft (104) and retaining the shaft (104), the snap plate (115, 120) comprising a plurality of deformable arms (115) that configured to removably installable within (Fig. 4A) a solar panel coupling (103), the boss (see examiner comments) extending away from (vertically) the body (117) and configured to engage (Fig. 9D) the solar panel coupling (103); and
the foot (108) actuatable ([0087]) to adjust a distance between the foot (108) and the solar panel coupling (103), wherein the foot (108) engages with a roof surface (102, via 114) in response to the solar panel coupling (103) being installed on the roof surface (102),
but fails to disclose the shaft comprising teeth, the foot actuatable by pulling the teeth through the snap plate.
However, Nakajima discloses the shaft (12) comprising teeth (18), the foot (Braunstein: 108) actuatable (Braunstein: [0086]; Nakajima [0081] discloses removal, and as such, is capable of adjustment) by pulling the teeth (18) through the snap plate (P1/P2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilization assembly of Braunstein with the shaft comprising teeth, the foot actuatable by pulling the teeth through the snap plate as disclosed by Nakajima in order to connect components together in a tool-less manner via a single motion and in a removable manner ([0004]). In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (threaded connection) for another (toothed connections) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
It should further be noted that the language “pulling” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 11, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 10, wherein the solar panel coupling (103) comprises a top portion (proximate 113) and a bottom portion (proximate 116), the bottom portion defining a first opening (between 116), the solar panel coupling (103) is configured to support a solar panel (112), wherein the shaft (104) is installable through a first hole (113) defined in the solar panel coupling (103).
Re claim 12, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 10, wherein the stabilization assembly (101) is configured to stabilize a solar panel coupling (103) to aid in installation of solar panels (112).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braunstein et al (“Braunstein”) (US 2015/0180404) in view of Nakajima (US 2008/0031703) and Jun et al (“Jun”) (US 2012/0145227).
Re claim 9, Braunstein discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 4, Nakajima discloses wherein the shaft (12) comprises a first plurality of teeth (18), but fails to disclose wherein the snap housing having a second plurality of teeth, wherein the first plurality of teeth engages the second plurality of teeth.
However, Jun discloses wherein the snap housing (200) having a second plurality of teeth (222), wherein the first plurality of teeth (122) engages the second plurality of teeth (222).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilization assembly of Braunstein wherein the snap housing having a second plurality of teeth, wherein the first plurality of teeth engages the second plurality of teeth as disclosed by Jun in order to connect components together in a tool-less manner ([0020]). In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (threaded connection) for another (toothed connections) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
Re claim 13, Braunstein discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 10, Nakajima discloses wherein the shaft (12) comprises a first plurality of teeth (18), but fails to disclose wherein the snap housing having a second plurality of teeth, wherein the first plurality of teeth engages the second plurality of teeth.
However, Jun discloses wherein the snap housing (200) having a second plurality of teeth (222), wherein the first plurality of teeth (122) engages the second plurality of teeth (222).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilization assembly of Braunstein wherein the snap housing having a second plurality of teeth, wherein the first plurality of teeth engages the second plurality of teeth as disclosed by Jun in order to connect components together in a tool-less manner ([0020]). In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (threaded connection) for another (toothed connections) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Specification: Applicant’s arguments with respect the specification objection have been considered and objection to the specification is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that Braunstein discloses that rail 114 is attached to a bracket which is in turn connected to the roof. Applicant argues that the current claims present a foot which directly engages a roof. First, no roof is positively recited, nor is any interaction with a roof positively recited. Second, claim 1 requires, “the foot configured to engage a roof surface.” This is a statement of intended use. 108 of Braunstein is capable of engaging a roof surface and as such, reads on the claims. Third, there is nothing claimed that distinguishes what a roof surface is. A rail or bracket on a roof may constitute a roof surface. As such, the prior art meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining claims are addressed in the above.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
465
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 on (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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights