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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The use of the term Bluetooth® (page 17 line 9), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 15 includes a misspelling, it is believed “colelctors” should be “collectors” . 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cleaning tool” in claim 1 and a “control unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of guide rails” in claim 1, “actuating means” in claim 1, and “means of a distribution circuit” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 7, 10-12, 16, 18, and 20 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.
Claim 5 recites that “the cylindrical brush has a predetermined length”, however it is unclear which cylindrical brush is being referred to. Claim 5 depends from claim 4, claim 4 recites that there is “another cylindrical rotary brush”, therefore there are two rotary brushes included in claim 4. Therefore, it is unclear if one or both cylindrical brushes are required to have the predetermined length recited in claim 5.
Claim 7 lines 1-2 recites “The cleaning robot according to any one of claim 1…” This is somewhat unclear. Did the applicant intend to recite “The cleaning robot according to claim 1…”?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lower part of the rail" in line 2 and the limitation “the upper part of the rail” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which rail is being referred to as there are plural guide rails.
Claim 11 recites that “two linear actuators are fixed at the upper part of the frame, in particular to the rails, and…” It is unclear if the actuators are required by claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “the actuating rods moving horizontally and being connected, in particular by flexible links and pulleys, to the cleaning tool…” It is unclear if the flexible links and pulleys are required in claim 12.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the drive wheels" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Are these the same as the “wheels” that are recited to in claim 1?
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the arm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is claim 18 meant to depend from claim 17?
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the pivot point" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites that the cleaning robot comprises “a tank of washing liquid, in particular water…” It is unclear if the rank of washing liquid is required to be water in claim 20.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims are drawn to a “cleaning robot for solar collectors” (see claim 1 line 1). The solar collectors are not positively recited structural elements of the cleaning robot, instead they are the objects being cleaned by the cleaning robot. Claim 14 (which depends from claim 1) recites that “the solar collectors are selected from photovoltaic solar collectors and thermal solar collectors”. The type of solar collectors being cleaned does not further limit the subject matter of the cleaning robot. Therefore, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al., CN 111151486 A (see also English translation) in view of Meng et al., CN 211070992 U (see also English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Luan et al. disclose a cleaning robot for cleaning solar collectors (see English translation of Abstract) comprising: a gantry-type frame configured to span a row of solar collectors (1, English translation of Abstract) and define a corresponding cleaning space (space within the frame 1, see Figures); wheels that are fixed to the frame in order to move the latter and are associated with drive means (5, see Figures; “universal wheels” in English translation, are associated with a drive means when being pushed by a user); a cleaning tool extending across a width of the frame and able to move in the cleaning space in order to be positioned with respect to an upper surface of the solar panels (rubber wiper 11, see English translation; see Figures), the cleaning tool being guided by means of guide rails fixed to the frame (rail 8, only one is labeled but plural are shown in Figure 2); actuating means to move the cleaning tool along the guide rails (slider 9 actuated by the “steering engine 16” fixedly “connected with two rocker arms”, see English translation); at least one distance sensor arranged to determine a distance between the cleaning tool and a respective solar collector (19, see English translation); a control unit connected to the at least one distance sensor and configured to adjust the position of the cleaning tool with respect to the solar collectors of a row by way of the actuating means (see English translation in the paragraph before “Claims”, 16 is described as also being a data control steering engine to adjust the tool with respect to the solar collector surface); wherein: the frame comprises two lateral uprights (two of the lateral uprights of 4 shown in Figure 1) that are connected in their upper part by a transverse member (unlabeled, transverse members of 4 that are at an upper part of frame 4, Figure 1), one of the guide rails is fixed to each of the lateral uprights (Figures 1-2); the cleaning tool has towards each of its ends a respective guide element (9) which cooperates with an associated guide rail (8), the two guide rails define a plane of movement for the cleaning tool (see Figures) and one of the guide rails is mounted in an articulated manner on one of the lateral uprights so as to be able to pivot in the plane of movement (via 3, see particularly Figures 1 and 3 and English translation). Regarding claim 7, the guide elements comprise a guide part (slider 9 is a guide part) capable of moving linearly along the guide rail (see Figures, rail 8), and a connecting part fixed in articulated manner to a support frame of the cleaning tool (connecting part includes buckle 3 fixed to support frame 2, see Figures). Regarding claim 14, the solar collectors are photovoltaic solar collectors (see English translation of Abstract). Regarding claim 15, the wheels are pivotable by 360° and at least one wheel on either side of the frame is a drive wheel (see English translation describes wheels 5 as a “universal wheel”; a universal wheel, according to the definition provided by LPHY website The difference between directional wheel and universal wheel, “refers to a wheel mounted on a rotating bracket…and can rotate 360 degrees in its horizontal direction…”) Regarding claim 17, two wheels are mounted and supported under each lateral upright (Figure 1) by an axle arm (unlabeled horizontal arm extending between the two wheels, Figure 1), the arm being fixed pivotably at the lower part of the lateral upright (see Figure 1, via unlabeled screw that joins the arm to the uprights, capable of pivoting about the point where the screw is located).
Luan et al. fail to disclose that the actuating means comprise, at the two ends of the cleaning tool, a respective linear actuator connected to the frame, an actuating rod of which is connected to the cleaning tool and guide element, respectively. In Luan et al. the actuating means, as best understood in the English translation, that the cleaning tool moves along rails (8) by a slider (9) driven by a steering engine (16).
Meng et al. teach a cleaning robot for cleaning solar collectors (see English translation of Abstract) that comprises a frame configured to span a row of solar collectors (11, Figure 1) and define a corresponding cleaning space (see Figures), wheels fixed to the frame in order to move the frame (24 and 26 in Figure 1; 4 in Figure 2) and are associated with drive means (25 or 3, Figures 1-2), a cleaning tool (roller brush 8) extending across the width of the frame and able to move in the cleaning space in order to be positioned with respect to an upper surface of the solar panels (Figures 1-2), actuating means to move the cleaning tool (rods 9, 10), wherein the actuating means comprise, at the two ends of the cleaning tool, a respective linear actuator connected to the frame (Figures 1-2), an actuating rod of which is connected to the cleaning tool and a guide element, respectively (rods 9 and 10 are actuating rods of linear actuators, they are connected to the frame at an unlabeled “guide element” in Figures 1-2; see also English translation).
The actuating means are able to move the end of the brush so that it can adapt to different angles and heights relative to the photovoltaic plate of the solar collector (see English translation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the actuating means mounted to the cleaning tool and guide element at one end and frame at the other end of Luan et al. for actuating rods, as taught by Meng et al., as a known method of providing direction and position between a frame and cleaning tool so that it can be adjusted as needed to accommodate the solar panel being cleaned.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al., CN 111151486 A (see also English translation) and Meng et al., CN 211070992 U (see also English translation).
Luan et al. and Meng et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above. Regarding claim 2, Luan et al. the cleaning tool comprises rotary rubber wipers (11) that extend across the width of the frame along a first axis (see Figures and English translations, Figure 4 shows the rotary rubber wipers in detail). Regarding claim 3, the rotary wiper details is cylindrical having a central shaft (unlabeled, small portion of shaft shown in Figures 2 and 4) parallel to and concentric with the first axis and is driven in rotation about the central shaft (see Figures and English translation). Regarding claim 4, there is another cylindrical rotary wiper (11, there are two, see Figures), the central shaft of which is parallel to the first axis and offset from the latter (see Figures), the other brush being driven in rotation about its central axis (see Figures and English translation). Regarding claim 5, the cylindrical rotary wiper has a predetermined length (see Figures) and is composed of a single section or a plurality of sections (in that there are a plurality of sections of wipers that are also continuous in one section, see Figures). Regarding claim 6, the cleaning tool comprises a plurality of axial rotary wipers fixed to a cross piece extending across the width of the gantry (wipers 11 fixed to 2, see Figures), the rotary wipers are arranged to cover the width of the gantry (see Figures).
Luan et al. describe the cleaning tool as rotary cylindrical rubber wipers (11, English translation) and fails to disclose that the cleaning tool are rotary cylindrical brushes.
Meng et al. teach that a cleaning tool of a rotary brush (8) that is effective at cleaning photovoltaic solar collectors, can remove snow, and are part of systems that are economical, practical, and efficient (see English translation of the Abstract). Meng et al. notes that the brush will not damage the photovoltaic plate (English translation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute each of the two rotary cylindrical rubber wipers of Luan et al. with a rotary cylindrical brush, such as the one taught by Meng, as an effective cleaning medium to clean and remove snow from photovoltaic solar panels without damaging the photovoltaic plates.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al., CN 111151486 A (see also English translation) and Meng et al., CN 211070992 U (see also English translation) as applied to claim 1, in view of Hartman et al., US 2020/0164414.
Luan et al. and Meng et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above. Luan et al. discusses having at least one distance sensor (19) but does not specify a type of distance sensor such as a LIDAR, ultrasonic transmitter and detector, or camera type of sensor.
Hartman et al. also teach a cleaning robot that includes at least one distance sensor (62) to sense a position in spatial relation to a solar panel or panel array and to allow for orientation of a cleaning/maintenance assembly (5, see paragraphs [0059]-[0060]). Regarding claim 13, the at least one distance sensor comprises a LIDAR, ultrasonic transmitter and detector, or camera type of sensor (see paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one distance sensor of Luan et al. and Meng et al. so that it comprises a LIDAR, ultrasonic transmitter and detector, or camera type of sensor, as taught by Hartman et al., as a known and effective type of sensor used to assist positioning a tool near a solar collector.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al., CN 111151486 A (see also English translation) and Meng et al., CN 211070992 U (see also English translation) as applied to claim 1, in view of Hartman et al., US 2020/0164414.
Luan et al. and Meng et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above. Luan et al. and Meng et al. fail to disclose that the control unit is further configured to control drive wheels and move the cleaning robot along a predetermined route of solar collectors to be cleaned.
Hartman et al. also teach that its cleaning robot includes a control unit (processor 20, 42; navigation module 160; paragraph [0112]) that is configured to control drive wheels (55) and move the cleaning robot along a predetermined route (169, Figure 4) of solar collectors to be cleaned (paragraphs [0109] and [0112]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit of Luan et al. and Meng et al. so that it further comprises a control unit configured to control drive wheels and move the cleaning robot along a predetermined route of solar collectors to be cleaned, as taught by Hartman et al., as a way to guide and navigate the robot through an array of solar collectors.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al., CN 111151486 A (see also English translation) and Meng et al., CN 211070992 U (see also English translation) as applied to claim 1, in view of Hartman et al., US 2020/0164414.
Luan et al. and Meng et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above, however each fail to disclose a rechargeable battery coupled to photovoltaic panels carried by the frame.
Hartman et al. also teach all elements previously described. Regarding claim 19, Harman et al. additionally teaches that its cleaning robot (2, 3) further comprises a rechargeable battery (213, paragraphs [0076], [0129], [0131]) coupled to photovoltaic panels carried by the robot/frame in order to provide electrical power for the cleaning robot (paragraphs [0076], [0129], [0131]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of the cleaning robot of Luan et al. and Meng et al. so that comprises and carries a rechargeable battery coupled to photovoltaic panels, as taught by Hartman et al., in order to provide and store electrical power to operate the cleaning robot.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al., CN 111151486 A (see also English translation) and Meng et al., CN 211070992 U (see also English translation) as applied to claim 1, in view of Hartman et al., US 2020/0164414.
Luan et al. and Meng et al. disclose all elements previously mentioned above, however each fail to disclose a tank of washing liquid (water) and nozzles installed on the frame and/or cleaning tool, fed by means of a distribution circuit.
Hartman et al. also teach all elements previously described. Regarding claim 20, Harman et al. additionally teach that the robot (2) further comprises tank of washing liquid (fluid reservoir 65, Figure 12A; cleaning fluid 66; can include water, paragraph [0066], [0068]) and nozzles installed on the frame and/or cleaning tool (125, Figure 12B) that are fed by a distribution circuit (Figures 12A-12B, see arrows in Figure 12 A in particular showing how the cleaning fluid is distributed as a circuit, see also paragraph [0100]). Cleaning with fluid allows foreign matter to be removed from solar collectors (paragraphs [0064] and [0066]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of the cleaning robot and frame of Luan et al. and Meng et al. to also comprise a tank of washing liquid water and nozzles installed on the frame and/or cleaning tool, fed by means of a distribution circuit, as taught by Hartman et al., in order to provide a cleaning liquid or steam to effectively remove debris from the surface of a solar collector panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-12 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As best understood, none of the prior art made of record discloses, teaches, or suggests the invention of claims 8-12 and 18. None of previously discussed Luan et al., Meng et al., or Hartman et al. teach the subject matter of claims 8-12 and 18.
US 8,984,704 to Saraf, CN 206153184 U to Zhang et al., CN 106824855 B to Zhang et al., and US 2021/0281212 to Roeloffs are all cited as being relevant to the claimed invention, however do not disclose the subject matter of claims 8-12 and 18 as best understood.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg