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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3-5 and 16-21 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.
In the preamble of claims 1,17 and 18, the language “configured to walk” should be changed to “configured to support a personal walking”, since the device/module doesn’t actually do the walking. Otherwise, the preamble is unclear and indefinite.
In claim 3, “curved surface region” should be changed to “curved surface area” to be consistent with language in claim 1.
In claim 17, the phrase “of foam throughout at least a portion of its thickness.” is ambiguous because the pronoun may refer to the foam material or cushioning device. Changing this phrase to “extending through at least a portion of the thickness of the cushioning device.” would appear to correct this language.
In claims 18 and 19, “the solar module walking module” is inconsistent with the previously introduced “solar module walking device” and lacks proper antecedent basis and therefore is indefinite. To correct replace “solar module walking module” with “solar module walking device”.
In claim 18, placement of “that is flexurally elastic” makes it unclear whether elasticity modifies the foam material, thickness, or damping device. It would appear placing “flexurally elastic” immediately after the foam material it modifies, if this was applicant’s intention.
In claim 19 and 20, replace “solar panel module” with “solar module walking device” to be consistent with language in claim 1, otherwise it is unclear and indefinite.
In claim 21, replace “first length” with “second length” inasmuch as a length can’t be twice itself. This would correct this language from being indefinite.
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.
Claims 1,3-5 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202020000208 (Meyer) in view of US 6551225 (Romero). See English translation of DE ‘208.
Regarding claims 1,3-5,16 and 19-21, Meyer discloses a solar module walking device (1) configured to walk on solar modules, the solar module walking device comprising:
a carrying device (2) having an upper surface and a lower surface,
a damping device (3) for contacting the solar modules connected to the spatially curved surface area of the lower surface, the damping device comprising a material that is flexurally elastic (see ¶0007,0010 and claim 4 of the German version; e.g. in ¶0007 the damping device formed from “yielding foam” (nachgiebigem Schaumstoff) and see ¶0010 which translates to in substance: a foamed material that yields underweight loading and returns to its original state afterwards. It permits the solar-panel ribs to penetrate partially into the damping device);
a foot receptacle (6) provided to the upper surface of the carrying device; a compensating device (5 (8,11)) arranged between the carrying device (2) and the foot receptacle (6), the compensating device being configured to enable the foot receptacle to be moved and locked in place (at least see figure 5 and ¶0008 and 0014 of the German version of Meyers’).
Meyer does not appear to disclose the lower surface of the carrying device having the claimed spatially downward-curved area.
Romero teaches a balancing exercised device placed on the person’s foot, wherein the missing flexible hemispherical surface extending downward. The damping device (10) has a flexible hemispherical surface (20) extending downward, at least see figures 1,4-6 and claim 1 “a flexible solid hemisphere having a flat circular surface and a hemispherical side surface” made from “flexible resilient material” that slightly compresses under compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the damping device as taught by Meyer its lower surface having a spatially downwardly curved surface area, as taught Romero, to accommodate loading and movement in multiple directions.
Regarding claim 3, Romero’s hemispherical lower surface is rotationally symmetrical and spherical or spherical-cap-shaped. Because claim 3 presents the shapes as alternatives, disclosure of the rotationally symmetrical or spherical-cap alternative is sufficient. The Meyer and Romero combination therefore renders claim 3 obvious.
Regarding Claim 4, Romero forms the supporting exercise body as a flexible hemisphere. It would have been obvious to form Meyer’s carrying structure with that downwardly curved body configuration and attach Meyer’s damping layer to its underside.
Regarding Claim 5, The currently amended claim recites that the upper surface of the carrying device includes a planar horizontal surface portion on which the compensating device is fastened. Meyer fastens its compensating device to the upper side of plate-shaped carrying device 2. Romero also provides a flat upper surface above its hemispherical lower surface. The combined structure therefore retains a planar upper mounting portion while providing the curved lower region required by claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Romero’s hemispherical contacting structure is convex in both side and rear views. When Meyer’s flexible damping material is applied over or formed to follow the Romero-derived hemispherical lower surface, the damping device has a convex surface in both views and that surface contacts the solar modules.
Regarding Claim 19, under the Meyer and Romero combination, Meyer supplies the claim-specific hinge or ball-joint-like compensating structure, articulation of the foot receptacle relative to the carrying device, and the clamping or locking arrangement that fixes a selected angular position. Romero supplies the curvature inherited from claim 1. Claim 19 is therefore properly treated under 103 using the same combination.
Regarding Claim 20, Meyer depicts and describes a large-area damping structure extending along the carrying device, with the foot receptacle positioned above it. The damping structure appears substantially longer than the foot receptacle and extends forward and rearward beyond it. Romero supplies the inherited curvature. If Meyer’s side-view drawing unmistakably establishes the comparative lengths, the limitation is met. If the relative lengths are not sufficiently definite from the drawing, it would have been obvious to enlarge the damping footprint relative to the foot receptacle to distribute the user’s load over a greater panel area while retaining a foot-sized receptacle.
Regarding Claim 21, as written, claim 21 compares the first length with itself. Under the apparent intended construction, the first length is about twice the second length. Meyer shows a damping footprint materially longer than the foot receptacle. Selecting an approximately two-to-one relationship would have been a routine dimensional optimization balancing a larger load-distributing contact area against maneuverability and interference between paired walking devices.
Regarding claim 17, Meyer discloses a solar module walking device (1) configured to walk on solar modules, the solar module walking device comprising a support device (2) connected to a downwardly extending cushioning device (9) configured to make contact with the solar modules, with a foot receptacle (6) provided above the support device (2), and with a compensating device (5) arranged between the support device (2) and the foot receptacle, which enables the foot receptacle to be moved and locked in placed (at least see figure 5 and ¶0008 and 0014 of the German version of Meyers’) , the cushioning device having a flexurally elastic material of foam (see ¶0007,0010 and claim 4 of the German version; e.g. in ¶0007 the damping device formed from “yielding foam” (nachgiebigem Schaumstoff) and see ¶0010 which translates to in substance: a foamed material that yields underweight loading and returns to its original state afterwards. It permits the solar-panel ribs to penetrate partially into the damping device) thoughout at least a portion of its thickness.
Meyer does not appear to disclose the lower surface of the carrying device having the claimed spatially downward-curved area.
Romero teaches a balancing exercised device placed on the person’s foot, wherein the missing flexible hemispherical surface extending downward. The damping device (10) has a flexible hemispherical surface (20) extending downward, at least see figures 1,4-6 and claim 1 “a flexible solid hemisphere having a flat circular surface and a hemispherical side surface” made from “flexible resilient material” that slightly compresses under compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the damping device as taught by Meyer its lower surface having a spatially downward curved surface area, as taught Romero, to accommodate loading and movement in multiple directions.
Regarding claim 18, Meyer discloses a solar module walking device (1) configured to walk on solar modules, the solar module walking module comprising a support device (2) connected downwardly to a damping device (3) configured to contact the solar modules, with a foot receptacle (6) provided above the support device and with a compensating device (5) arranged between the support device (2) and the foot receptacle (6), which enables the foot receptacle to be moved and locked in place (at least see figure 5 and ¶0008 and 0014 of the German version of Meyers’), the damping device comprising a foam material (see ¶0007,0010 and claim 4 of the German version; e.g. in ¶0007 the damping device formed from “yielding foam” (nachgiebigem Schaumstoff) and see ¶0010 which translates to in substance: a foamed material that yields underweight loading and returns to its original state afterwards. It permits the solar-panel ribs to penetrate partially into the damping device) throughout at least a portion of a thickness of the damping device that is flexurally elastic,
Meyer does not appear to disclose the lower surface of the carrying device having the claimed spatially downward-curved and wherein the spatially curved surface area is either rotationally symmetrical, approximately spherical, or spheroidal in shape.
Romero teaches a balancing exercised device placed on the person’s foot, wherein the missing flexible hemispherical surface extending downward and is either rotationally symmetrical, approximately spherical, or spheroidal in shape. The damping device (10) has a flexible hemispherical surface (20) extending downward, at least see figures 1,4-6 and claim 1 “a flexible solid hemisphere having a flat circular surface and a hemispherical side surface” made from “flexible resilient material” that slightly compresses under compression. Regarding being either rotationally symmetrical, approximately spherical, or spheroidal in shape, this is at least shown in the figures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the damping device as taught by Meyer its lower surface having a spatially downwardly curved surface area, as taught Romero, to accommodate loading and movement in multiple directions.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the claim(s) previously rejected have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including:
-“The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.”
--“A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
-Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06” MPEP 714.02. The “disclosure” includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED KAVANAUGH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule a telephone interview, applicant is encouraged to call the examiner. Normally telephone interviews can quickly be scheduled. For other types of interviews, 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 57-1272-4888. 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.
/Ted Kavanaugh/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3732
Tel: (571) 272-4556
Prosecution Insights