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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “the controller” in lines 2-3 which lacks antecedent basis and is unclear as multiple controllers are recited. It is unclear if applicant intended to recite that “each” controller of the multiple controllers individually controls the respective spoilers or something else. Further explanation is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 637 in view of DE 102008023549 (DE 549).
For claim 1, KR 2012-0134637 (KR 637) discloses a system for harvesting energy of a mobility vehicle, the system comprising:
a spoiler (11,110) provided on an outer surface of the mobility vehicle (10), wherein an angle (operation angle, Abstract) of the spoiler is adjusted so as to adjust an air flow;
a driver (118) installed on the mobility vehicle for mounting the spoiler,
the driver configured to generate a driving force (as an adjustment, Abstract) when operating such that the spoiler is tilted in at least one direction, thereby changing the angle of the spoiler;
a solar cell module (solar panel 120) installed on the spoiler so as to convert light energy into electric energy; and
a controller (155) configured to control the driver according to a traveling speed of the mobility vehicle, thereby determining the angle of the spoiler.
It should be noted that the limitation of the controller configured to control the driver based on light energy input, which is recited in the alternative, is considered an optional limitation (option B) and has not been treated on the merits.
PNG
media_image1.png
251
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, the spoiler is configured to be tilted in the at least one direction being forwards or backwards ([0013]).
For claim 9, the controller controls the driver, if the mobility vehicle travels at a preset speed or higher ([0012]), such that the spoiler is tilted so as to slope downwards while facing forwards.
For claim 10, the controller controls the driver such that the tilting angle of the spoiler, which slopes downwards while facing forwards, increases ([0007]) according to the traveling velocity of the mobility vehicle, which increases beyond the preset speed.
For claims 12-13, further comprising
a sunlight sensing portion (“sun tracker sensor”, [0016]) configured to identify the sun's position information.
With regard to the additional limitations of the controller for claims 12 and 13, these features relate to the alternative option and are not further limiting with respect to the controller configured to control the driver according to a traveling speed of the mobility vehicle.
For claim 15, the sunlight sensing portion comprises photosensor modules (sun tracker sensor) configured to sense the amount of solar radiation such that the sun's position is identified according to the intensity of solar radiation input to respective photosensor modules.
For claim 1, KR 637 discloses the driver (118) comprising a support (115) and further specifies that a gear transmission device, a belt transmission device, a friction transmission device, a final reduction gear, and the like may be installed inside the housing (115) (not shown) ([0030]).
KR 637 lacks only the driver comprising first and second actuators and corresponding first and second links as recited including the specifics of the first and second motor portions and first and second gear portions.
DE 549 teaches a solar cell module (FIG.1) having a driver comprising first and second driving portions (see generally cogwheel segments 6, FIGS.1-2) which move a universal joint (3),
the first driving portion is configured such that the spoiler is tilted forwards/backwards, and the second driving portion is configured such that the spoiler is tilted leftwards/rightwards (corresponding to claim 8 of the current invention).
DE 549 further teaches the first driving portion includes a first actuator (gear 16/17) and a first link (segment 6),
the first actuator is installed on a lower portion so as to generate a driving force,
the first link is connected to the upper panel so as to receive the driving force from the first actuator and to move accordingly.
DE 549 further teaches the second driving portion comprises a second actuator (gear, not numbered in FIG.1) and a second link (cogwheel segment, not numbered, FIG.1),
the second actuator is installed on the lower cover so as to generate a driving force, and
the second link is connected to the upper panel so as to receive the driving force from the second actuator and to move in a different direction from the first link.
PNG
media_image2.png
695
781
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The first actuator comprises a first motor portion (16,17 to communicate with motor 15) and a first gear portion (gear/cogwheel) configured to receive power from the first motor portion and to rotate accordingly,
the first gear portion is configured to mesh with an inner peripheral surface (see where the inner arcuate segment meshes on an inner surface, FIG.1) of the first link,
the second actuator comprises a second motor portion and a second gear portion configured to receive power from the second motor portion and to rotate accordingly, and
the second gear portion is configured to mesh with an inner peripheral surface (inner arcuate segment surface) of the second link.
The first link is disposed to rotate forwards/backwards, and the second link is disposed to rotate leftwards/rightwards (as seen in FIG.1, above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided in place of the driver for KR 637 a system as shown in DE 549 in order to allow for forward/backward and lateral movement of the spoiler to optimize the use of the solar cell module.
For claim 20, KR 637, as modified, discloses a mobility vehicle (10) comprising the system of claim 1.
Claims 3, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 637 as applied above to claim 1 and in view of KR 576.
KR 637 fails to provide multiple spoilers or the controller capable of controlling the driver based on a braking sensing speed.
KR 101561576 (KR 576) teaches these features, where multiple spoilers (100, 200) are configured on the outer surface of the mobility vehicle (FIGS. 2 and 5), each of the multiple spoilers being equipped with a respective driver (left and right dive units), and the respective drivers configured to operate individually (“independently”, Abstract) under the control of the controller to allow angles of the respective spoilers to be differently adjusted.
KR 576 further provides a controller that controls the driver such that the spoiler is tilted so as to slope downwards while facing backwards if the mobility vehicle is decelerated below a braking sensing speed within a preset time (a braking sensor (700) measures the braking force of the vehicle and the inclination angle of the left and right spoilers (100,200) “may be increased or decreased in proportion to the generated braking force”).
PNG
media_image3.png
241
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have adapted the singular spoiler of KR 637 to encompass multiple spoilers as taught by KR 576 and further to have included a braking sensor with corresponding control as taught by KR 576 in order to better control/stabilize the overall balance of the vehicle, especially when braking.
For claim 16, KR 576 teaches, as set forth above, the use of multiple spoilers and a control unit (300) but KR 637, as modified above, fails to provide multiple controllers each being configured to individually control one respective spoiler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided a second controller to control the second spoiler for it is a mere duplication of part having no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced which is not the case in this instance. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of an essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 637 as applied above to claim 1 and further in view of DE 10201086536 (DE 536).
KR 637 discloses the driver (118) comprises a housing (115) and further specifies that a gear transmission device, a belt transmission device, a friction transmission device, a final reduction gear, and the like may be installed inside the housing (115) (not shown) ([0030]).
KR 637 fails to set forth the specifics of the driving portions as recited.
For claim 4, DE 536 teaches a solar cell device for a vehicle having a driver comprising a housing, a first driving portion (oppositely positioned 18c, FIG.2), and a second driving portion (oppositely positioned 18c, FIG.2),
the first driving portion is configured such that the spoiler is tilted forwards/backwards, and the second driving portion is configured such that the spoiler is tilted leftwards/rightwards.
PNG
media_image4.png
371
445
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided four distinct driving portions as provided by DE 536 for use within distinct housings (115) of KR 637 in order to allow for forward/backward and lateral movement of the spoiler to optimize the use of the solar cell module.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 637 as applied to claim 4 and further in view of KR 100956360 (KR 360).
KR 637, as modified, fails to set forth the specifics of the housing and does not provide the driving portions housed within a housing comprising a lower cover and an upper cover, the lower cover is fixedly installed on the mobility vehicle, the upper cover is provided above the lower cover such that the angle thereof is changed.
This feature is known from KR 360 which shows a solar cell module (FIG.1) having a driver comprising a housing (lower cover 210; and upper cover 262) with driving portions contained therein (FIGS.7-10). A PHOSITA understands a housing for the driving components offers protection from debris, elements, and wear.
PNG
media_image5.png
430
415
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
226
249
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the driver of KR 637, as modified, within a housing having upper and lower covers as taught by KR 360 in order to enclose and protect the drive portions from undue damage or wear.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 637 as applied above to claim 12 and further in view of Cooley.
For claim 14, the sunlight sensing portion identifies the sun's position in current position of the mobility vehicle by aggregating the current position of the mobility vehicle (when stopped) and time ([0013]) but fails to include weather information.
Cooley (2024/0424900) teaches a control system (1216) configured to communicate with a vehicle computer (1334) and to receive input as well as additional data ([0087]). The vehicle computer sends input (from sensors and input devices) as well as the additional data, which can include vehicle velocity (from accelerometer 1338) and weather data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have included for the aggregation of information for the sunlight sensing portion of KR 637 additional data as weather information as taught by Cooley in order to better inform the positioning of the spoiler.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 637 as applied above to claim 12 and further in view of KR 102193763 (KR 763) and JP 2007-180484.
For claim 17, KR 637 does not anticipate the need for obstacle detection or providing the spoiler in an initial position when the sun is blocked by an obstacle.
KR 763 teaches a sensing unit (110) sensing an object based on a shadow captured on the surface of a solar panel (200), and a controller (control unit 140) that analyzes information on the object based on the shadow sensed. An image sensor (a camera) captures the shadow/obstacle on the solar panel and the control unit (140) analyzes the information to determine the type of object based on the shape.
JP 2007-180484 teaches a sun tracking system having a solar panel (panel assembly) which is positioned at an initial position when it is “cloudy or when the sun is not shining”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the system of KR 637, as modified, with both an obstacle sensing unit as taught by KR 763 and an assembly to provide the spoiler at an initial position when cloudy or when the sun is not shining (blocked by an obstacle) as taught by JP 484 for efficiency (so that efficient solar tracking and efficient use of sunlight are possible).
For claim 18, KR 637, as modified, discloses the sunlight sensing portion identifies the sun's position over time ([0013]), and the controller adjusts the position of the spoiler such that the solar cell module follows the sun's position if the controller confirmed that light is incident onto the mobility vehicle as a result of a change in the sun's position over time.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 637 as applied above to claim 1 and further in view of either KR 300 or Ward.
KR 637 makes no mention that the solar cell module is detachably installed on the spoiler.
This feature is found in KR 300 (KR 2016-0141300) or alternatively, Ward (2008/0143292).
KR 300 teaches a solar power generation device including a solar tracker which controls the rotation angle and alignment of a solar cell (panel 100). The solar panel (100) is provided on a frame (200) and is detachable from the frame.
Alternatively, Ward (2008/0143292) teaches a vehicle having solar panels directed toward the sun. The solar panels are modular and can be easily removable ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have made the solar module of KR 637 detachable as taught by either of KR 300 or Ward in order to allow the module to be removable for replacement or theft prevention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the first paragraph of the remarks, applicant is incorrect that allowable subject matter was indicated in the prior office action. There was merely a typographical error at the top of page 7 (numeral 14). As can be seen at page 6 (numeral 13), claim 4 was rejected previously. In the following paragraph (#14) claims 5-8 were rejected. As seen in the explanation of DE 549, all of the limitations of these claims were accounted for and one needed only to read through the rejection to ascertain this information. Furthermore, no claims were indicated as allowable in the rejection nor on form PTO 326. If applicant has questions about the office action or rejection in the future, please do not hesitate to contact the examiner at the phone number set forth in the conclusion.
Regarding the claim objections, applicant’s amendments have overcome the objections which are now moot.
With respect to the 112 rejections, all but one (with respect to claim 16) have been overcome. The issue with claim 16 still remains, as the claim recites “the controller” and lacks antecedent basis.
With regard to the 102/103 rejections, applicant’s amendment has obviated the 102 rejection set forth in the prior action. With regard to the 103 rejection, applicant argues KR 637 does not teach or suggest the newly added subject matter of claim 1, specifically wherein the driver comprises first and second actuators and corresponding first and second links; where the first and second actuators includes first and second motor portions and first and second gear portions, respectively.
Examiner notes that these features are taught by DE 549 as set forth in the prior office action and again in this action, above in the 103 combination type rejection. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. Examiner interviews are available. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights