DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Restriction election received on 02/11/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-15) and Species 1 (figures 2-6) in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected invention Group II and Species 2. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/11/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show element 50 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 13 is 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. In particular, the limitation “the stop member has a fin projecting outwardly therefrom and having an angled surface presenting in a generally upward direction” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this configuration and such a modification to include the stop member as claimed would require modifying the modifier reference in a manner that would have involved hindsight reconstruction
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 of this title, 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) 1-4, 9 and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougle et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0016780), in view of Cheng (CN113071603A with Espacenet translation).
Regarding claim 1, McDougle et al. teaches an articulating panel mount assembly (vault cover assembly; abstract), comprising: a lower frame (38, 40, 44, 46) capable of being mountable to an installation surface; an upper frame (54, 56, 58), the upper frame attached to the lower frame at a proximal end of the lower frame (figure 1) and pivotable between closed and open positions (figure 1 and figure 4); a biasing mechanism (18) secured to the lower frame at a first end (end of coil spring on 46; figure 2) and secured to the upper frame at a second end (other end of coil spring on 58; figure 2), the biasing mechanism positioned to normally bias the distal end of the upper frame away from the lower frame toward the open position (figure 1); and a releasable latch mechanism (24, 26, 28) positioned to latch the upper frame to the lower frame in the closed position (figure 4), the latch mechanism including a latch portion (28) mounted for movement between a latch engaging position (lowered position; figure 4) and a latch releasing position (raised position; figure 1), and a trigger (lever handle on 26), wherein actuation of the trigger causes the latch portion to move from the latch engaging position to the latch releasing position to permit the upper frame to pivot to the open position as a result of a biasing force generated by the biasing mechanism (it is understood that pulling the lever would release the biasing mechanism and cause the latch portion to move from the latch engaging position to the latch releasing position, thus permitting the upper frame to pivot to the open position as a result of a biasing force generated by the biasing mechanism).
McDougle et al. does not specifically disclose a solar panel mount assembly for mechanically coupling to at least one solar panel.
Cheng discloses a hatch cover (paragraph 1) including mechanically coupling to at least one solar panel (photovoltaic panel; paragraph 5).
Therefore, from the teaching of Cheng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vault cover of McDougle et al. to include a solar panel mount assembly for mechanically coupling to at least one solar panel, as taught by Cheng, to have the vault cover serve multiple functions beyond access control. It is well known that solar panels provide energy efficiency and since architectural components are commonly adapted to improve space efficiency, it would be an obvious design choice to combine the two components to reduce the need for separate standalone framing while optimizing for space and energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, McDougle et al. teaches the lower frame comprises at least a pair of substantially parallel legs (38, 40) extending from a cross-member (44) disposed at or adjacent to a proximal end thereof (figure 1), and the upper frame comprises at least a pair of substantially parallel legs (54, 56) extending from a cross-member (58; adjacent the hinge) disposed at a proximal end thereof (figure 1) and a transverse member (58; adjacent the latch) disposed at or proximate to a distal end thereof (figure 1) and connecting the upper frame legs (figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, McDougle et al. teaches at least one hinge (20, 62) positioned on or proximate to a top surface of the lower frame (figure 1) to pivotally attach the upper frame to the lower frame (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 4, McDougle et al. teaches a pin (24) integral with or connected to one of the lower frame legs (figure 1), the pin offset from a top surface of the lower frame leg (figure 1) and extending in a direction approximately normal thereto (figure 1), and the latch portion is positioned proximate the distal end of an adjacent one of the upper frame legs (figure 4), wherein when the upper frame is in the closed position, the latch portion is releasably engaged with the pin (figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, McDougle et al. teaches the upper frame is approximately perpendicular to the lower frame when in the open position (figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, McDougle et al. teaches the upper frame has longitudinal sides (54, 56) and lateral sides (58), and wherein the upper frame is pivotally attached to the lower frame about one of the longitudinal sides (figures 1 and 4).
McDougle et al. does not specifically disclose the lateral sides are shorter than the longitudinal sides. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the lateral sides shorter than the longitudinal sides, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a mere change in size involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the lateral sides shorter than the longitudinal sides, in order to provide the optimal transverse span across the structural framing while maintaining sufficient access area for ingress and egress particularly in a space constrained environment.
Claim(s) 5-7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougle et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0016780), in view of Cheng (CN113071603A with Espacenet translation), and in view of Cermola et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,927,012).
Regarding claim 5, McDougle et al. does not specifically disclose the latch mechanism trigger is a pull cord attached one at one end to the latch portion for moving the latch portion from the latch engaging position to the latch releasing position when tension is applied to the pull cord.
Cermola et al. discloses a latch mechanism (abstract) is a pull cord (56) attached one at one end to the latch portion (figure 2) for moving the latch portion from the latch engaging position to the latch releasing position when tension is applied to the pull cord (in the combination, it is understood that the pull cord of Cermola et al. would move the latch portion from the latch engaging position to the latch releasing position of McDougle et al. when tension is applied to the pull cord).
Therefore, from the teaching of Cermola et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vault cover assembly of McDougle et al. such that the latch mechanism trigger is a pull cord attached one at one end to the latch portion for moving the latch portion from the latch engaging position to the latch releasing position when tension is applied to the pull cord, as taught by Cermola et al., in order to provide a remote means of opening the hatch for optimal usability and accessibility purposes.
Regarding claim 6, Cermola et al. in the combination discloses the pull cord extends through a plurality of spaced mounting clips (95a, 95b) along the length of a portion of the upper frame (in the combination, it is understood that the mounting clips of Cermola et al. would be of along the length of a portion of the upper frame McDougle et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Cermola et al. in the combination discloses the pull cord is at least partially embedded within a channel (95a) extending along the length of at least a portion of the upper frame (in the combination, it is understood that the pull cord of McDougle et al. would be along the length of at least a portion of the upper frame).
Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougle et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0016780), in view of Cheng (CN113071603A with Espacenet translation), and in view of Plasse et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,833,178).
Regarding claim 8, McDougle et al. does not specifically disclose a substantially planar extension member extending from the lower frame cross-member in a direction opposite the lower frame legs to provide a counterweight when the upper frame is in an open position with respect to lower frame.
Plasse et al. discloses a pivotal frame arrangement (abstract; figure 1) including a substantially planar extension member (34) extending from the lower frame cross-member in a direction opposite the lower frame legs (figure 1) to provide a counterweight when the upper frame is in an open position with respect to lower frame (col. 5, lines 8-10).
Therefore, from the teaching of Plasse et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vault cover assembly of McDougle et al. to include a substantially planar extension member extending from the lower frame cross-member in a direction opposite the lower frame legs to provide a counterweight when the upper frame is in an open position with respect to lower frame, as taught by Plasse et al., in order to further stabilize the frame against repeated pivotal forces during the opening and closing of the cover.
Claim(s) 10 and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougle et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0016780), in view of Cheng (CN113071603A with Espacenet translation), and in view of Dabrowski et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,799,395).
Regarding claim 10, McDougle et al. does not specifically disclose the biasing mechanism is a gas spring or strut.
Dabrowski et al. discloses a door and lifting mechanism (abstract) wherein the biasing mechanism is a gas spring (abstract).
Therefore, from the teaching of Dabrowski et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vault cover assembly of McDougle et al. such that the biasing mechanism is a gas spring, as taught by Dabrowski et al., in order to provide a damping motion to the opening and closing of the cover in order to reduce slamming and provide a smoother transition between open and close movements.
Regarding claim 12, McDougle et al. does not specifically disclose a stop member integral with or coupled to the at least one hinge to prevent over-rotation of the upper frame during articulation to the open position.
Dabrowski et al. discloses a door and lifting mechanism (abstract) including a stop member (44) integral with or coupled to the at least one hinge (figure 9A) to prevent over-rotation of the upper frame during articulation to the open position (it is understood that the stop member would prevent over-rotation of the upper frame during articulation to the open position).
Therefore, from the teaching of Dabrowski et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vault cover assembly of McDougle et al. to include a stop member integral with or coupled to the at least one hinge to prevent over-rotation of the upper frame during articulation to the open position, as taught by Dabrowski et al., in order to provide a damping to the opening of the cover in order to prevent over-rotation and damage to the frame.
Claim(s) 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDougle et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0016780), in view of Cheng (CN113071603A with Espacenet translation), and further in view of Fletcher et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0114269).
Regarding claim 11, McDougle et al. as modified in view of Cheng does not specifically disclose at least one mounting bracket for attaching a solar panel to the upper frame, the mounting bracket comprising prongs at or proximate one end thereof for coupling to an outer edge of the solar panel and at least one mounting hole proximate an opposite end for receiving a fastener therethrough to secure the mounting bracket to the upper frame.
Fletcher et al. discloses a solar panel assembly (abstract) including at least one mounting bracket (44) for attaching a solar panel (12) to the upper frame (figure 3), the mounting bracket comprising prongs (upper flanges of 44; figure 3) at or proximate one end thereof (figure 3) for coupling to an outer edge of the solar panel (figure 3) and at least one mounting hole (hole through which fasteners [not labeled] extend; figure 3) proximate an opposite end (figure 3) for receiving a fastener therethrough to secure the mounting bracket to the upper frame (figure 3).
Therefore, from the teaching of Fletcher et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified vault cover and PV panel assembly of McDougle et al. and Cheng to further include at least one mounting bracket for attaching a solar panel to the upper frame, the mounting bracket comprising prongs at or proximate one end thereof for coupling to an outer edge of the solar panel and at least one mounting hole proximate an opposite end for receiving a fastener therethrough to secure the mounting bracket to the upper frame, as taught by Fletcher et al., in order to provide a removable attachment of the solar panel to facilitate maintenance and replacement of damaged panels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to articulating and solar mounts in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633