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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “the solar panel array is in a reduced size”. First, the solar panel array is never recited as part of the assembly or module. Each of claims 1 and 11 state “a frame work to accommodate a solar panel array” without ever positively stating the solar panel array is part of the assembly or module. Second, it is unclear whether applicant is claiming the reduced size refers to retraction of the frame to a collapsed configuration or whether applicant is referring to the hinged array being reduced in size to a stacked configuration (see claim 7). Referring to the specification, clarification is not provided (see applicant’s specification para [007]). Appropriate correction is required, claims 2-10 and 11-20 are rejected as dependent on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim 4 recites “the framework is supported on a set of retractable bars”. The only retractable bars in the specification are the base bars (see applicant’s specification in reference to fig. 4, para [027]-[028]). As the applicant did not use the term base bar(s), it is unclear whether these are the same or different bars, as the specification only covers the base bars are retractable. Appropriate correction is required. The claim is being interpreted in light of the specification that the base bars and the retractable bars refer to the same bars.
Claims 8 and 9 recite the limitation "the planar configuration", “the first solar panel” and “the second solar panels” in lines 1-2 and “the stacked configuration”, “the hinge connection”, “the first solar panel”, and “the second solar panel”, in lines 1-3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Consider depending claims 8 and 9 from claim 7.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCalmont et al. (US 2023/0208345) in view of Ansari et al. (US 2019/0326846)
Regarding claims 1 and 11, modified McCalmont discloses a modular charging station (claim 11) an assembly for a modular charging station (claim 1) (see para [0022]), comprising:
an assembly (100 and/or 600) (see para [0036] and [0046], respectively);
a framework (108) to accommodate a solar panel array (110) (shown in figs. 1-4); and
a lift assembly (104/106) attached to the framework (108) (see para [0037]-[0038]);
wherein the assembly operates between:
a deployed configuration, wherein the assembly is actuated upwards, and the solar panel array is operational; and
a retracted configuration, wherein the assembly is retracted downwards, and the solar panel array is arranged in a reduced size (see para [0037], i.e., arranged in the collapsed/retracted configuration, i.e., raise and lower frame/table (108), resulting in a reduced size).
Alternatively (see 35 USC 112 rejection above), McCalmont does not disclose the XY dimensions of the solar panel array in a reduced footprint.
Ansari is analogous art to McCalmont as Ansari discloses a solar array that has a retracted configuration and a deployed configuration (see abstract). Ansari discloses wherein the solar panels are reduced in the XY dimension when retracted, (i.e., by being hinged and stacked one on the other when retracted, see para [0073] and claim 3).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the solar panel array of McCalmont to hinge and stack the solar panel array when in the retracted configuration to reduce the XY footprint in addition to the Z footprint.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, modified McCalmont discloses an assembly as claimed in claim 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the framework comprises:
a first arm; a second arm; a third arm; a fourth arm (shown in figs. 1-4)
wherein: the first arm is pivoted to the third arm about a first pivot; and the second arm is pivoted to the fourth arm about a second pivot (i.e., 104 and 106, wherein 104 comprises the first arm pivoted to the third arm; wherein 106 comprises the second arm pivoted to the fourth arm, i.e., scissor lift shown in figs. 1-4, see McCalmont para [0037]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, modified McCalmont discloses an assembly as claimed in claims 2 and 12, respectively, wherein the first arm, the second arm, the third arm, and the fourth arm respectively (forming lift mechanism 104/106) comprise first ends coupled to the framework (108) (shown in fig. 2), and second ends coupled to base bars (foundation 102 comprising base bars shown in fig. 4) (e.g. attachments 612, 616, 614, 618, shown in fig. 6, see McCalmont para [0049]).
As McCalmont discloses choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., connection of lift mechanism to frame 108 and bars 102), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, modified McCalmont discloses an assembly as claimed in claims1 and 11, respectively, wherein the framework comprises:
at least one set of pulleys formed on at least one of:
the first arm; the second arm: the third arm; and the fourth arm (i.e., mechanical lifter is attached to an arm of lift mechanism shown in fig. 6, wherein mechanical can be a pulley, see McCalmont para [0051]) (see obviousness discussion of claim 3).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, modified McCalmont discloses an assembly as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the solar panel array comprises:
a first solar panel; and a second solar panel attached to the first solar panel via a hinge connection, wherein the first solar panel and the second solar panel are arranged in a planar configuration and a stacked configuration (see McCalmont fig. 5 and Ansari figs. 3 and 4, and Ansari para [0073] and claim 3).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, modified McCalmont discloses an assembly as claimed in claims 1, 7, 11 and 17, respectively, wherein the planar configuration comprises:
the first solar panel and the second solar panel arranged on the same plane (see McCalmont fig. 5 and Ansari figs. 3 and 4, and Ansari para [0073] and claim 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, modified McCalmont discloses an assembly as claimed in claims 1, 7, 11, and 17, wherein the stacked configuration comprises: the first solar panel rotated about the hinge connection and stacked on the second solar panel (see McCalmont fig. 5 and Ansari figs. 3 and 4, and Ansari para [0073] and claim 3).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, modified McCalmont discloses an assembly as claimed in claims 1 and 11, wherein the framework comprises: at least one support (622) adjoined to the base bars (602) (see McCalmont para [0047]) (see obviousness discussion of claim 3).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCalmont et al. and Ansari et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bond et al. (US 2022/0322839).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, modified McCalmont disclose an assembly as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, but does not disclose wherein the framework is supported on a set of retractable bars, each retractable bar comprising:
a first bar; and
a second bar slidingly arranged within the first bar,
wherein: the second bar is accommodated within the first bar in the retracted configuration; and
the second bar extends from the first bar up to a predefined length to support the platform in the deployed configuration.
Bond is analogous art to McCalmont as Bond discloses a scissor lift (1340) on a base (1100) comprising bars (1115) (see figs. para [0034] and [0041]). Bond discloses wherein the scissor lift framework is supported on a set of retractable bars (1100), each retractable bar comprising a first bar (1115) and a second bar (1120, i.e., retractable segment),
wherein: the second bar is accommodated within the first bar in the retracted (smaller width) configuration; and
the second bar extends from the first bar up to a predefined length to support the platform in the deployed (expanded) configuration (see fig. 1, para [0034]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the base bars of McCalmont to be telescopic, (i.e., wherein the second bar is accommodated with the first base bar in the retracted position), because telescoping bars allow for adjustment of the width in either the X, Y or both directions allowing for a smaller footprint.
The court has held “in a simple mechanical invention a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist." See Stevenson v. Int'l Trade Comm., 612 F.2d 546, 550, 204 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1979). McCalmont and Qui are both scissor lift mechanisms, with bars as the base, wherein both mechanisms are meant to expand and retract in size.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCalmont et al. and Ansari et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Qiu (US 2025/0132721).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, modified McCalmont discloses an assembly as claimed in claims 1 and 11, respectively, but does not disclose wherein the framework comprises: at least one set of wheels installed on the base bars.
Qiu is analogous art to modified McCalmont as Qiu discloses a solar panel array that has a retracted and deployed configuration, that includes a scissor lift (104) connected to a base (1) (see fig. 1, abstract and para [0016]). Qiu further discloses wheels (101) attached to the base (1) (see figs. 1 and 2, para [0022]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the base bats of McCalmont by adding wheels as the court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e., the base bars of McCalmont and the wheels of Qiu) according to known methods (as disclosed by Qui) wherein the results are predictable (i.e., a movable base on wheels).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721