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 Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: the first clause is repetitive with the final clause of claim 1 and should be removed. See repetitive language underlined in the claims below. Appropriate correction is required.
From claim 1: “wherein the solar-powered vehicle is configured to be fully powered by electric power generated from a plurality of solar panel assemblies of the solar-powered vehicle, including at least the first and second solar panel assemblies”
From claim 7: “wherein the solar-powered vehicle is an electrically motorized solar-powered riding vehicle that is configured to be fully powered by electric power generated from the plurality of solar panel assemblies of the solar-powered vehicle, including at least the first and second solar panel assemblies”
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyers (US 9,090,207).
In re claims 1, 10 and 11, Meyers discloses a solar-powered vehicle comprising: a body (16) having a front end, rear end, top, bottom and opposing sides, the body further defining a cavity; two or more wheels (18a, 18b); a first and second solar panel assembly (58) respectively disposed and permanently coupled on the opposing sides of the body including a first side and a second side (the solar cells can be disposed in any suitable location such as on the outer body panels 16, see column 6, lines 58-61); one or more electric motors (52a, 52b) disposed within the cavity of the body between the first and second solar panel assemblies, the one or more electric motors configured to rotate at least one of the two or more wheels (via belts as shown in Figure 9); and one or more electric batteries (26) disposed within the cavity of the body between the first and second solar panel assemblies, the one or more electric batteries configured to power the one or more electric motors and to be charged by electric current generated by the first and second solar panel assemblies, wherein the solar-powered vehicle is configured to be fully powered by electric power generated from a plurality of solar panel assemblies of the solar-powered vehicle, including at least the first and second solar panel assemblies (as shown by vehicle not having pedals/crank or any other power source). Regarding “respectively”, note additional discussion detailed in the Response to Arguments section below.
In re claim 8, Meyers further discloses wherein non-electric power sources (engine) are absent from the vehicle.
In re claim 12, Meyers further discloses wherein the solar- powered vehicle further comprises: a front motor associated with a front hub of a front wheel; and a rear motor associated with a rear hub of a rear wheel (as shown in Figure 9).
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.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers in view of Pezza (US 9,555,679).
In re claim 2, Meyers further discloses wherein the first and second solar panel assemblies that are respectively disposed and permanently coupled on the opposing sides of the body, but does not disclose wherein the first and second solar panel assemblies cover at least 90% of respective side faces of the sides of the body. Pezza, however, does disclose a first and second solar panel assembly (922) disposed respectively on the opposing sides of the body and having symmetry about the central axis X and covering at least 90% of the respective sides (as shown in annotated Figure 9a below; the Examiner notes that the solar panel covers the entire panel and the annotated cutaway line is simply to show the components behind the panel) of the body and having symmetry about the central axis X; the one or more electric batteries (910) configured to be charged by electric current generated by the first and second solar panel assemblies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Meyers such that it comprised the solar panels of Pezza to recharge the batteries for continuous operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner-annotated Figure 9a
In re claim 17, Meyers discloses the solar-powered vehicle of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the first and second solar panel assemblies cover at least 75% of respective side faces of the sides of the body. Pezza, however, does disclose a first and second solar panel assembly (922) disposed respectively on the opposing sides of the body and having symmetry about the central axis X and covering at least 75% of the respective sides of the body (as shown in annotated Figure 9a above; the Examiner notes that the solar panel covers the entire panel and the annotated cutaway line is simply to show the components behind the panel) and having symmetry about the central axis X; the one or more electric batteries (910) configured to be charged by electric current generated by the first and second solar panel assemblies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Meyers such that it comprised the solar panels of Pezza to recharge the batteries for continuous operation.
Claims 7, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers in view of Chen (US 2008/0210289).
In re claim 16, Meyers discloses the solar-powered vehicle of claims 1 and 10, but does not disclose wherein one or both of the first and second solar panel assemblies are movable to expose a compartment defined by the cavity of the body of the solar-powered vehicle, the one or both of the first and second solar panel assemblies being movable by a rotatable coupling to expose the compartment defined by the cavity of the body of the solar-powered vehicle. Chen, however, does disclose wherein the first and second solar panel assemblies (16) are movable to expose a storage compartment defined by the cavity of the body of the solar-powered vehicle, the one or both of the first and second solar panel assemblies being movable by a rotatable coupling (5) to expose the storage compartment defined by the cavity of the body of the solar-powered vehicle as shown in Figure 1b. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panels of Meyers such that they comprised the rotatable couplings of Chen to allow more efficient charging while not in use by being able to rotate them towards the sun.
In re claims 7 and 18, Meyers discloses the solar-powered vehicle of claims 1 and 10, but does not disclose wherein the first and second solar panel assemblies are rotatably coupled on opposing sides of the body of the solar-powered vehicle via rotatable couplings, the first and second solar panel assemblies configured to: assume a folded-down configuration suitable for riding the vehicle with the first and second solar panels assemblies disposed against the body of the vehicle with a rider sitting on top of and straddling the vehicle with the rider's legs on opposing sides of the vehicle, and assume a folded-up configuration suitable for solar charging of the vehicle while the vehicle is stationary, the folded-up configuration including the first and second solar panel assemblies rotated away from the body of the vehicle. Chen, however, does disclose wherein the first and second solar panel assemblies (16) are rotatably coupled on opposing sides of the body via rotatable- 35 -4815-6070-7773v.4 0105198-029US0Docket No. 0105198-029US0 Patentcouplings, wherein the first and second solar panel assemblies are configured to assume a folded-down configuration suitable for travel with the solar panels assemblies disposed against the body, and wherein the first and second solar panel assemblies are configured to assume a folded-up configuration suitable for solar charging while stationary, the folded-up configuration including the first and second solar panel assemblies rotated away from the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panels of Meyers such that they comprised the rotatable couplings of Chen to allow more efficient charging while not in use.
Claims 4, 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers in view of Sharkan (US 9,422,022).
In re claims 4 and 13, Meyers discloses the solar-powered vehicle of claims 1 and 10, but does not disclose further comprising elongated baseboards extending along the bottom of the body of the solar-powered vehicle on opposing sides of the body, with the baseboards extending away from the body and creating a respective planar shelf. Sharkan, however, does disclose a compact vehicle having elongated baseboards (35) extending along the bottom of the body of the solar-powered vehicle on opposing sides of the body, with the baseboards extending away from the body and creating a respective planar shelf as shown in Figures 4-5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Meyers such that it comprised the baseboards of Sharkan to advantageously provide the rider with a standing platform.
In re claims 6 and 20, Meyers discloses the solar-powered vehicle of claims 1 and 10, but does not disclose wherein a front wheel of the two or more wheels extends past the front end of the body. Sharkan, however, does disclose a compact vehicle having a front wheel (20) of the two or more wheels extends past the front end of the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Meyers such that it comprised the more forward wheel of Sharkan to advantageously provide the rider with an extended wheelbase for increased control.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers in view of Hines (US 2016/0221627).
In re claims 9 and 19, Meyers further discloses a handlebar assembly (20) at a top front end of the solar-powered vehicle rotatably disposed symmetrically about a central axis X of the solar-powered vehicle (as shown in Figure 2 and 3), the handlebar assembly comprising: an angled stem (as shown in Figure 5) extending from the top of the body, a pair of handlebars extending from the angled stem (as shown in Figure 4), but does not disclose a user interface comprising a screen that is integral to the handlebar assembly and integrally disposed between the pair of handlebars above the stem and aligned with the central axis X, the screen comprising a touch-screen display. Hines, however, does disclose a user interface (5) comprising a screen that is integral to the handlebar assembly and integrally disposed between the pair of handlebars above the stem and aligned with the central axis X, the screen comprising a touch-screen display (as shown in Figures 1 and 3) to control the motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Meyers such that it comprised the touchscreen user interface of Hines to control the vehicle’s drive motor.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers in view of Privitelli (US 2019/0144058).
In re claim 14, Meyers further discloses comprising a kickstand (column, 20, line 50) disposed at the bottom of the body to engage the ground and hold the solar-powered vehicle upright, but does not disclose the kickstand defining a pair of legs that extend from opposing sides of the body of the solar-powered vehicle. Privitelli, however, does disclose a two-wheeled vehicle having a kickstand with a pair of legs (7) extending from opposing sides of the body to support the vehicle when not in use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Meyers such that it comprised the kickstand of Privitelli to support the vehicle when not in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein one or both of the first and second solar panel assemblies are movable to expose a storage compartment defined by the cavity of the body of the solar-powered vehicle, the one or both of the first and second solar panel assemblies being movable by a rotatable coupling to expose the storage compartment defined by the cavity of the body of the solar-powered vehicle” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner' s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose panels that pivot to expose a “storage compartment”.
Claims 3 and 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “wherein the opposing first side and second side of the body are planar and both slope outward such that a width between the first side and second side of the body is smaller at the top of the body, wherein the width between the first side and the second side of the body increases toward the bottom of the body” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner' s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose wherein the body panel sides slope outward such that the width increases toward the bottom of the body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Myers does not disclose a first and second solar panel assembly respectively disposed and permanently coupled on the opposing sides of the body including a first side and a second side. The Examiner, however, notes that the use of the word “respectively” while referring to an unstated number of “opposing sides” is unclear as to which sides the solar panels are actually mounted. Therefore “respectively” is understood in its broadest sense, given that it attempts to correlate an unstated number of sides to specifically 2 solar panels. The Examiner further notes that claim 1 does not specifically/positively recite two sides with each solar panel assembly being disposed in a one-to-one relationship onto specifically a single side of the two sides. Instead, claim 1 recites an unstated number of “opposing sides”, said number of opposing sides including a first side and a second side (and possibly others). As claimed, Meyers also teaches multiple sides (“one or more outer body panels 16”, see column 3, lines 43-44), out of which two sides 16 are depicted in Figs. 2 and 4. Meyers clearly teaches disposition/placement of multiple solar panels assemblies 58 onto multiple (i.e. at least two, as depicted) sides 16, see column 6, lines 58-59 (“solar cells 58 can be disposed…e.g., on the outer body panel(s) 16”), thus disclosing collective placement of the solar panel assemblies onto sides and without discussing detailed individual placement of each of the solar panel assemblies 58.
Applicant argues that Pezza does not disclose solar panels covering the sides. The Examiner, however, maintains that Pezza discloses complete coverage and the cutaway line as shown in the annotated figure above is simply to show the components located behind the panel. The entire side of the panel up to the cutaway line is shown to have the solar panel 922, which signifies that it continues to the end of the panel.
Applicant argues that Chen discloses pivoting panels that do not expose a compartment. The Examiner maintains that the panels pivot upwards and expose the entire internal structure of the vehicle as shown in Figure 1b. Applicant further argues that Chen’s vehicle is a cart and not a vehicle, however the Examiner maintains that they are analogous art since they both comprise solar panels on wheeled structures.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn since Chen does not disclose a “storage compartment”, but rather an opening/area of space that can at best be broadly considered to be a “compartment” as claimed in claim 16.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3 and 15 has been withdrawn since Robertson does not disclose the wider width at the bottom due to the panels being sloped.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611