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 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: securing element (Claims 1-9,14,19-20) and other device (Claims 13,18).
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.
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 13 and 18 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 limitation “other device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The term other device does not denote specific structure. The phrase, “other device that can be secured to rails on the first solar panel” does not denote specific structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0163720 A1 to Di Stefano et al. (hereinafter referred to as Di Stefano) in view of US 2024/0078501 Al to Terabase Energy, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Terabase Energy 501) and further in view of US 2021/0206003 A1 to Rosendin Electric, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Rosendin Electric) and further in view of US 2023/0238912 Al to Terabase Energy, Inc (hereinafter referred to as Terabase Energy 912).
Regarding Claim 1, Di Stefano teaches a system (Fig. 2) for orientating and loading a solar panel (P; Fig. 3) within a centralized solar table assembly factory (transportable station 51/81; Paras. [0052] and [0081]; Fig. 2), the system comprising:
a crate guide (crate: containers C2; Fig. 3; guide: 90/91; para. [0056]/[0060]/[0062]; alternatively, 11, para. [0055], FIG. 1-2) holding a plurality of solar panels (Para. [0057]);
a robotic arm (robot R; Fig. 2) located proximate to the crate such that the robotic arm may couple to a solar panel within the plurality of solar panels (Paras. [0057]-[0058]; Fig. 3), the robotic comprising:
a base (unnumbered portion of robot R adjacent to base structure B as shown in Fig. 2) that is secured to a floor (base structure B; Fig. 2) of the centralized solar table assembly factory (Para. [0053]);
an extending rod (unnumbered arm of robot R as shown in Fig. 2) coupled to the base, the extending rod extends away from the base (as shown in Fig. 2);
a securing element (gripper G; Fig. 5) coupled to the extending rod, the securing element couples to a first side of the first solar panel (Para. [0057]; Fig. 5); and
an assembly framework (support frame 3 and longitudinal beam 3; Para. [0049]; Fig. 1) located proximate to the robotic arm (Paras. [0073]-[0081]; Figs. 6-20), the assembly framework comprising rails that support a properly aligned solar panel being loaded by the robotic arm (Para. [0076]);
Claim 2: wherein the crate guide supports the slipper holding the crate and wherein the crate contains the plurality solar panels in a predefined sequence and orientation (para. [0061]);
Claim 3: wherein the robotic arm provides the rotation motion and movement that allows the first solar panel to be loaded onto the assembly framework from a frontside, forward-facing aligned position (Paras. [0072]-[0081]; Figs. 5-20);
Claim 13: wherein the securing element comprises at least one of a clamp, claw and other device that can be secured to rails on the first solar panel (Para. [0072]; Fig. 5).
Di Stefano does not directly show:
Claim 1: a crate guide that supports at least one of a slipper and the crate holding the plurality of solar panels;
the robotic arm located proximate to the crate guide, the robotic comprising:
a plurality of motors coupled within the robotic arm, the plurality of motors control movement of the extending rod and the securing element to provide rotational motion and movement within an x, y and z planes to enable proper orientation of the first solar panel; and
the assembly framework comprising a top rail and a bottom rail;
Claim 4: wherein the robotic arm provides the rotation motion and movement that allows the first solar panel to be loaded onto the assembly framework wherein a top edge of first solar panel rests on the top rail;
Claim 5: wherein the robotic arm provides the rotation motion and movement that allows the first solar panel to be loaded onto the assembly framework from a backside, forward-facing aligned position;
Claim 6: wherein a first motor, within the plurality of motors, provides vertical movement of the securing element;
Claim 7: wherein a second motor, within the plurality of motors, provides horizontal movement of the securing element;
Claim 8: wherein a third motor, within the plurality of motors, provides rotational motion of the securing element;
Claim 9: wherein a fourth motor, coupled within the plurality of motors, provides movement to enable a frontside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel and a backside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel.
Terabase Energy 501 shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: a slipper (solar module crate transport 110; Fig. 1) and a crate (solar module crate 220; Fig. 2) holding a plurality of solar panels (solar modules 230; Abstract and Para. [0026]; Fig. 2) and teaches that the tilted base is such that solar modules are less likely to fall off the transport or fall forward when other modules are removed and enables an installation crew to un-crate and leave the uncrated solar modules in the field until the installation crew is ready to install the modules; [Para. [0022]);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing the solar panels from falling off or forward and allows the solar modules to left in the field until installed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Stefano as taught by Terabase Energy 501 and include Terabase Energy 501’s similar device having:
a slipper and a crate holding a plurality of solar panels;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing the solar panels from falling off or forward and allows the solar modules to left in the field until installed.
Rosendin Electric shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: a plurality of motors and provide rotational motion and movement within an x, y and z planes (a system (Fig. 3) for orientating and loading a solar panel (Abstract) and teaches of a robotic (120; Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of motors (not shown) coupled with the robotic arm (Para. [0052]), the plurality of motors control movement of the extending rod and the securing element to provide rotational motion and movement within an x, y and z planes to enable proper orientation of the first solar panel (Para. [0031]);
Claim 4: wherein the robotic arm provides the rotation motion and movement that allows the first solar panel to be loaded onto the assembly framework wherein a top edge of first solar panel rests on the top rail (Para. [0031]);
Claim 5: wherein the robotic arm provides the rotation motion and movement that allows the first solar panel to be loaded onto the assembly framework from a backside, forward-facing aligned position (para. [0031]; at least implicitly, “a 6-axis or a 7-axis robotic arm” requires multiple motion and movement with multiple motors);
Claim 6: wherein a first motor, within the plurality of motors, provides vertical movement of the securing element (para. [0031]; at least implicitly, “a 6-axis or a 7-axis robotic arm” requires multiple motion and movement with multiple motors);
Claim 7: wherein a second motor, within the plurality of motors, provides horizontal movement of the securing element (para. [0031]; at least implicitly, “a 6-axis or a 7-axis robotic arm” requires multiple motion and movement with multiple motors);
Claim 8: wherein a third motor, within the plurality of motors, provides rotational motion of the securing element (para. [0031]; at least implicitly, “a 6-axis or a 7-axis robotic arm” requires multiple motion and movement with multiple motors);
Claim 9: wherein a fourth motor, coupled within the plurality of motors, provides movement to enable a frontside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel and a backside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel (para. [0031]; at least implicitly, “a 6-axis or a 7-axis robotic arm” requires multiple motion and movement with multiple motors);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling proper orientation of the first solar panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Stefano as taught by Rosendin Electric and include Rosendin Electric’s similar device having:
Claim 1: a plurality of motors and provide rotational motion and movement within an x, y and z planes;
Claim 4: wherein the robotic arm provides the rotation motion and movement that allows the first solar panel to be loaded onto the assembly framework wherein a top edge of first solar panel rests on the top rail;
Claim 5: wherein the robotic arm provides the rotation motion and movement that allows the first solar panel to be loaded onto the assembly framework from a backside, forward-facing aligned position;
Claim 6: wherein a first motor, within the plurality of motors, provides vertical movement of the securing element;
Claim 7: wherein a second motor, within the plurality of motors, provides horizontal movement of the securing element;
Claim 8: wherein a third motor, within the plurality of motors, provides rotational motion of the securing element;
Claim 9: wherein a fourth motor, coupled within the plurality of motors, provides movement to enable a frontside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel and a backside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling proper orientation of the first solar panel.
Terabase Energy 912 shows a similar device having:
(Terabase Energy 912 teaches a system (Fig. 2) for orientating and loading a solar panel (410; Fig. 4) within a centralized solar table assembly factory (202; Abstract; Fig. 2) and teaches of an assembly framework (assembly unit 300; Fig. 3));
Claim 1: the assembly framework comprising a top rail (upper rail 350; Fig. 3) and a bottom rail (lower rail 360; Para. [0033]; Fig. 3);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing the solar panels to move within the assembly unit to preferred coupling points at which they are coupled to the torque tube (para. [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Stefano as taught by Terabase Energy 912 and include Terabase Energy 912’s similar device having:
Claim 1: the assembly framework comprising a top rail and a bottom rail;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing the solar panels to move within the assembly unit to preferred coupling points at which they are coupled to the torque tube.
Claims 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Stefano in view Terabase Energy 501, Rosendin Electric, Terabase Energy 912, and Nisshinbo Mechatronics Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Nisshinbo Mechatronics; US 2018/0138858 A1). Di Stefano discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Di Stefano does not directly show:
Claim 10: wherein the securing element comprises a plurality of suction cups that couple to a surface of the first solar panel;
Claim 11: wherein the glass surface is on a frontside of the first solar panel;
Claim 12: wherein the glass surface is on a backside of the first solar panel.
Nisshinbo Mechatronics shows a similar device having:
Claim 10: wherein the securing element comprises a plurality of suction cups that couple to a glass surface of the first solar panel (in light of Para. [0048] and Fig. 1);
Claim 11: wherein the glass surface is on a frontside of the first solar panel (in light of Para. [0048] and Fig. 1);
Claim 12: wherein the glass surface is on a backside of the first solar panel (in light of Para. [0048] and Fig. 1);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing glass which has a protective layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Stefano as taught by Nisshinbo Mechatronics and include Nisshinbo Mechatronics’s similar device having:
Claim 10: wherein the securing element comprises a plurality of suction cups that couple to a glass surface of the first solar panel;
Claim 11: wherein the glass surface is on a frontside of the first solar panel;
Claim 12: wherein the glass surface is on a backside of the first solar panel;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing glass which has a protective layer.
Claim(s) 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0163720 A1 to Di Stefano et al. (hereinafter referred to as Di Stefano) in view of US 2024/0078501 Al to Terabase Energy, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Terabase Energy 501) and further in view of US 2017/0313470 A1 to Britcher et al. (hereinafter referred to as Britcher) and further in view of US 2023/0238912 Al to Terabase Energy, Inc (hereinafter referred to as Terabase Energy 912).
Regarding Claim 14, Di Stefano teaches a system (Fig. 2) for orientating and loading a solar panel (P; Fig. 3) within a centralized solar table assembly factory (transportable station 51/81; Paras. [0052] and [0081]; Fig. 2), the system comprising:
a crate guide (crate: containers C2; Fig. 3; guide: 90/91; para. [0056]/[0060]/[0062]; alternatively, 11, para. [0055], FIG. 1-2) holding a plurality of solar panels (Para. [0057]);
a robotic arm (robot R; Fig. 2) located proximate to the crate guide such that the robotic arm may couple to a solar panel within the plurality of solar panels (Paras. [0057]-[0058]; Fig. 3), the robotic comprising:
a base (unnumbered portion of robot R adjacent to base structure B as shown in Fig. 2) that is secured to a floor (base structure B; Fig. 2) of the centralized solar table assembly factory (Para. [0053]);
an extending rod (unnumbered arm of robot R as shown in Fig. 2) coupled to the base, the extending rod extends away from the base (as shown in Fig. 2);
a securing element (gripper G; Fig. 5) coupled to the extending rod, the securing element couples to a first side of the first solar panel (Para. [0057]; Fig. 5); and
an assembly framework (support frame 3 and longitudinal beam 3; Para. [0049]; Fig. 1) located proximate to the robotic arm (Paras. [0073]-[0081]; Figs. 6-20), the assembly framework comprising rails that support a properly aligned solar panel being loaded by the robotic arm (Para. [0076]);
Claim 18: wherein the securing element comprises at least one of a clamp, claw and other device that can be secured to rails on the first solar panel (Para. [0072]; Fig. 5);
Claim 19: wherein the crate guide supports the slipper holding the crate and wherein the crate contains the plurality solar panels in a predefined sequence and orientation (Para. [0061]).
Di Stefano does not directly show:
Claim 14: a crate guide that supports at least one of a slipper and the crate holding the plurality of solar panels;
the robotic comprising:
a plurality of motors coupled within the robotic arm, the plurality of motors control movement of the extending rod and the securing element; and
a flipping station that is positioned proximate to the robotic arm, the flipping station allows the robotic arm to decouple from the first solar panel, support the decoupled first solar panel, and enable the robotic arm to recouple to the first solar panel to enable proper orientation of the first solar panel; and
the assembly framework comprising a top rail and a bottom rail;
Claim 20: wherein the decoupling and recoupling of the securing element to the first solar panel enables a frontside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel or a backside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel.
Terabase Energy 501 shows a similar device having:
Claim 14: a slipper (solar module crate transport 110; Fig. 1) and a crate (solar module crate 220; Fig. 2) holding a plurality of solar panels (solar modules 230; Abstract and Para. [0026]; Fig. 2) and teaches that the tilted base is such that solar modules are less likely to fall off the transport or fall forward when other modules are removed and enables an installation crew to un-crate and leave the uncrated solar modules in the field until the installation crew is ready to install the modules; [Para. [0022]);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing the solar panels from falling off or forward and allows the solar modules to left in the field until installed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Stefano as taught by Terabase Energy 501 and include Terabase Energy 501’s similar device having:
a slipper and a crate holding a plurality of solar panels;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing the solar panels from falling off or forward and allows the solar modules to left in the field until installed.
Britcher shows a similar device having:
(a system (robotic inverter/transfer station 614 and 618; Figs. 16 and 17) for orientating and loading a solar panel (PV modules 104; Abstract; Fig. 17))
Claim 14: a flipping station (platform tilt mechanism/ stationary rocker platform 624; Para. [0104]; Figs. 16 and 17) that is positioned proximate to the robotic arm (transfer carriage pivot arm assembly 628; Para. [0102]; Fig. 16), the flipping station allows the robotic arm to decouple from the first solar panel (para. [0109]), support the decoupled first solar panel (para. [0109]), and enable the robotic arm to recouple to the first solar panel to enable proper orientation of the first solar panel (Para. [0110]; where the arm assembly 628 is able to recouple to the first solar panel by simply raising the arm assembly 628);
Claim 20: wherein the decoupling and recoupling of the securing element to the first solar panel enables a frontside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel or a backside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel (Para. [0108]);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of orienting the solar panel as needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Stefano as taught by Britcher and include Britcher’s similar device having:
Claim 14: a flipping station that is positioned proximate to the robotic arm, the flipping station allows the robotic arm to decouple from the first solar panel, support the decoupled first solar panel, and enable the robotic arm to recouple to the first solar panel to enable proper orientation of the first solar panel;
Claim 20: wherein the decoupling and recoupling of the securing element to the first solar panel enables a frontside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel or a backside, forward-facing orientation of the first solar panel;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of orienting the solar panel as needed.
Terabase Energy 912 shows a similar device having:
(Terabase Energy 912 teaches a system (Fig. 2) for orientating and loading a solar panel (410; Fig. 4) within a centralized solar table assembly factory (202; Abstract; Fig. 2) and teaches of an assembly framework (assembly unit 300; Fig. 3));
Claim 14: the assembly framework comprising a top rail (upper rail 350; Fig. 3) and a bottom rail (lower rail 360; Para. [0033]; Fig. 3);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing the solar panels to move within the assembly unit to preferred coupling points at which they are coupled to the torque tube (para. [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Stefano as taught by Terabase Energy 912 and include Terabase Energy 912’s similar device having:
Claim 14: the assembly framework comprising a top rail and a bottom rail;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing the solar panels to move within the assembly unit to preferred coupling points at which they are coupled to the torque tube.
Claims 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Stefano in view Terabase Energy 501, Rosendin Electric, Terabase Energy 912, Nisshinbo Mechatronics, and Britcher. Di Stefano discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Di Stefano does not directly show:
Claim 15: wherein the securing element comprises a plurality of suction cups that couple to a glass surface of the first solar panel;
Claim 16: wherein the glass surface is on a frontside of the first solar panel;
Claim 17: wherein the glass surface is on a backside of the first solar panel.
Rosendin Electric shows a similar device having:
Claim 15: wherein the securing element comprises a plurality of suction cups that couple to a surface of the first solar panel (Para. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Stefano as taught by Rosendin Electric and include Rosendin Electric’s similar device having:
Claim 15: wherein the securing element comprises a plurality of suction cups that couple to a surface of the first solar panel;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing suction cups securely grip the surface but do not scratch the surface.
Nisshinbo Mechatronics shows a similar device having:
Claim 15: glass surface (in light of Para. [0048] and Fig. 1);
Claim 16: wherein the glass surface is on a frontside of the first solar panel (in light of Para. [0048] and Fig. 1);
Claim 17: wherein the glass surface is on a backside of the first solar panel (in light of Para. [0048] and Fig. 1);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing glass which has a protective layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Di Stefano as taught by Nisshinbo Mechatronics and include Nisshinbo Mechatronics’s similar device having:
Claim 15: glass surface;
Claim 16: wherein the glass surface is on a frontside of the first solar panel;
Claim 17: wherein the glass surface is on a backside of the first solar panel;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing glass which has a protective layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0027550 discloses robotic arm 410.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652