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 .
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the top ends" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the rail” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the rail” is the same or different from “a first rail”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the top ends” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the rail” in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-20 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 and recites “an upper flange” in lines 1-2, while claim 1 also recites “an upper flange” in line 5. It is unclear if “an upper flange” recited in claim 12 is the same as or different from “an upper flange” recited in claim 11.
Claim 13 depends on claim 11 and recites “the rail” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the rail” recited in claim 13 is the same as or different from “an elongate rail” recited in claim 11.
Claims 17 and 18 depend on claim 11 and recite “the elongate standoffs” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the elongate standoffs” recited in claims 17-18 are the same as or different from “standoffs” recited in line 3 of claim 11.
Claims 19-20 depend on claim 11 and recite “standoffs” in line 1, while claim 11 also recites standoffs in line 3. It is unclear if “standoffs” recited in claims 19-20 are the same as or different from “standoffs” recited in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Belikoff et al. (US 8,667,748).
Regarding claim 1, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus that secures at least one solar panel (200) to a supporting surface, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of spaced apart, elongate standoffs (see supporting columns 4 shown in figs. 5-6 and 18-19) each having a foot member at a lower end (see figs. 5-6 and 18-19); and
a first rail (see supporting beam 2, figs. 1-3, 6-9) interconnecting the top ends of at least two standoffs (4, see fig. 6), the rail comprising a beam (2, fig. 3) having:
an upper flange (see top panel 21 and the bending portion, fig. 3) supporting the at least one solar panel (200, see figs. 7-12),
a lower flange (see bottom panel 22 and the bending portion, fig. 3), and
a web (see tilted support portion 25, fig. 3) connecting the upper flange (21) to the lower flange (22, see fig. 3);
wherein the upper flange (21) and the lower flange (22) extending in opposite directions from the web (25, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches the first rail (2) has a length and a width transverse to the length (see figs. 1, 3 and 6-12), and the first rail (2) supports more than one solar panel (200) across its length (see figs. 7-12).
Regarding claim 4, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches the first rail (2) has a cross-section that is generally Z-shaped (see fig. 3; col. 5, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 5, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches the upper flange (or the bending portion of top panel 22) extends from the web at an angle greater than 90-degrees (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches at least 50% of the space between standoffs (4) is unobstructed (see figs. 6 and 18).
Regarding claim 10, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 9 above, and teaches at least 75% of the space between standoffs (4) is unobstructed (see figs. 6 and 18).
Regarding claim 11, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus that secures a plurality of solar panels to a supporting surface, comprises:
a plurality of spaced apart standoffs (4, figs. 5-6 and 18-19), each having a foot member at a lower end (see figs. 6 and 18); and
an elongate rail (2) interconnecting the top ends of at least two standoffs (4);
wherein the rail (2) comprising an upper flange (see top panel 21 and the bending portion) supporting at least two solar panels (200) arranged relative to each other transversely across the rail (see figs. 7-12).
Regarding claim 12, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 11 above, and teaches the elongate rail (2) comprises a beam having
an upper flange (see top panel 21 and the bending portion, fig. 3) supporting the at least one solar panel (200, see figs. 7-12),
a lower flange (see bottom panel 22 and the bending portion, fig. 3), and
a web (see tilted support portion 25, fig. 3) connecting the upper flange (21) to the lower flange (22, see fig. 3);
wherein the upper flange (21) and the lower flange (22) extending in opposite directions from the web (25, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 11 above, and teaches the elongate rail (2) has a length and a width transverse to the length (see figs. 1, 3 and 6-12), and the first rail (2) supports more than one solar panel (200) across its length (see figs. 7-12).
Regarding claim 14, Bellikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 11 above, and teaches the elongate rail (2) has a cross-section that is generally Z-shaped (see fig. 3; col. 5, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 15, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 11 above, and teaches the upper flange (or the bending portion of top panel 22) extends from the web at an angle greater than 90-degrees (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 11 above, and teaches where at least 50% of the space between standoffs (4) is unobstructed (see figs. 6 and 18).
Regarding claim 20, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 19 above, and teaches at least 75% of the space between standoffs (4) is unobstructed (see figs. 6 and 18).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belikoff et al. (US Patent 8,667,748) as applied to claims 1, 5 and 15 above.
Regarding claim 2, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches extending the rail (2) to accommodate more solar panels (see figs. 7-12).
Belikoff et al. does not explicitly disclose including a second rail spliced to the first rail.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Belikoff et al. by including a second rail spliced to the first rail to extend the rail to accommodate more solar panels as explicitly suggested by Belikoff et al. In addition, such modification would involve nothing more than a mere duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claims 5 and 15 above, and shows the bending portion of the first flange (e.g. the bending portion and top panel 21) extending at an angle greater than 90 degrees and less than where the angle is less than 180-degrees.
Belikoff et al. does not explicitly state the angle is less than 150-degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Belikoff et al. by having the angle to be less than 150 degrees; because less than 150 degrees is between greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees as drawn by Belikoff et al., and because selecting one known designs for the angle would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and the angle of less than 150 degrees would operate equally well as the angle shown by Belikoff et al.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belikoff et al. (US Patent 8,667,748) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of Conger (US 2010/0089433)
Regarding claims 7-8 and 17-18, Belikoff et al. discloses an apparatus as in claims 1 and 11 above.
Belikoff et al. does not explicitly disclose each of the elongate standoffs has a height of at least six inches as claimed in claims 7 and 17, nor do they teach each of the elongate standoffs has a height of at least twelve inches as claimed in claims 8 and 18.
Conger discloses the height of the column supporting the solar panel to be 8-15 feet for the purpose of being located in area that may be not suitable for another construction purposes or may be used to fill in unusable spaced within a commercial or industrial area for less safety concern compared to overhead mounted solar panels and resulting in significant cost saving (see [0204]). It is noted that 8-15 feet is right within the claimed ranges of at least six inches and at least twelve inches as claimed in claims 7-8 and 17-18.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the apparatus of Belikoff et al. by using the standoffs (or columns) having a height of 8-15 feet for the purpose of being located in area that may not be suitable for other construction purposes or may be used to fill in unusable spaced within a commercial or industrial area for less safety concern and resulting in significant cost saving as taught by Conger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726