DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 July 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1:
The term “dust carrying member” suggests that the member supplies or transports dust, whereas the structure disclosed in the application as the “dust carrying member” is more accurately described as a “dust wiping member” or “dust cleaning member”. It is suggested that the applicant replace all occurrences of “dust carrying member” with more accurate terminology.
As understood by the examiner, the “dust carrying members” are rotated, with a radial outer end of the member contacting the claimed motion delay assembly, while the radially inner portion of the respective member (41) continues to rotate (as necessary to progress the position of the trailing member 42 as shown in Fig. 11). Thus, only a portion of the first dust carrying member is delayed. For the claim to reflect this function, it is suggested that the term “a portion” be added between the words “of” and “the” in line 13 of claim 1.
The first occurrence of the word “and” in line 16, should be changed to “to”, which will clarify that the air is induced by the movement of the first and second dust carrying members, as opposed to suggesting some other source of air flow.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the term “adjacent surface wheels” and “adjacent side wheels” both lack proper antecedent basis. It is suggested that both claims be amended to depend from claim 3, which previously introduces the surface wheels and also defines the surface wheels in a manner that would overcome potential issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) fort the terms “surface wheels” in claim 11 and “side wheels” in claim 13, which fail to provide any structure thereto.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claim limitations “dust carrying member” (claim 1), “motion delay assemblies” (claim 1), “rotating elements” (claims 7-8 and 16), “movement mechanism” claims 15-16, and “extension wheel” (claims 17-18) have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because each term lacks the typical “means” language and/or lacks clear functional language (for instance, as discussed above, the “dust carrying members” are not understood to carry dust. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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 11, 13, 17 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.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, it is unclear whether the claim further defines any preceding claim, because there is no relative range or distance defined by the term “exceeds a first/second predefined distance”. For instance, the predefined distance may be zero, in which case, any distance between the respective wheels would read on the claimed spacing.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the claims are unclear because they rely on the term “extension wheel”, which is not clearly defined. It is assumed that the “extension wheel” is intended to refer to a wheel that is mounted on the at least one extension, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim only attempts to further define the width of the claimed invention relative to a width of a solar panel, which is not part of the claimed invention and not defined in any manner. Further, solar panels are known to be formed in a wide range of sizes, such that the claim is not considered to positively further limit the preceding claims, which effectively define the surface cleaning device having a width. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allouche et al. (2019/0214940 to be referred to hereinafter as AL) in view of Yu et al. (CN 209407044 U).
Regarding claim 1, AL discloses a surface cleaning device for cleaning surfaces of solar panels, wherein the surface cleaning device comprises: a main body (5); a first dust carrying/wiping member (101. Fig. 6B); a second dust carrying/wiping member (102); a motor (1); and one or more motion delay assemblies (6, 6’); wherein the first dust carrying member and the second dust carrying member are coupled to the motor; wherein the motor is configured to cyclically move the first dust carrying member and the second dust carrying member along a path (Figs. 5-6D and Fig. 12 numbers 130 and 140); wherein the one or more motion delay assemblies are configured to cyclically introduce a momentarily delay in a progress of the first dust carrying member along the path, while the second dust carrying member contacts the surface thereby reducing a gap between the first dust carrying member and the second dust carrying member and induce air to exit the gap and progress along the surface and remove dust that precedes the second dust carrying member (as shown in Figs. 6A-6D). However, AL fails disclose at least one extension that extends to at least one side of the main body. Yu discloses a similar cleaner, also configured for cleaning solar panels, and comprising opposed extensions that extends to either side of the main body and comprise at least one extension wheel (2/3) for interfacing with solar panels (discloses that the cleaner is supported on solar panels in the English language translation of the Abstract), wherein the extensions allow the cleaner to span a gap between adjacent solar panels (Abstract) to provide capability of cleaning multiple panel, even when separated by gaps, as is common for solar arrays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the cleaner of AL with similar extensions from either side, having wheels thereon, to provide the advantage taught by Yu, to allow the cleaner to span a gap between adjacent solar panels and to allow the cleaner to be used on solar panel arrays that do not have guide rails provided thereon.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed supra, Yu teaches that the at least one extension is multiple extensions that extend to both sides of the main body and comprise one or more extension wheels for interfacing with the solar panels.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, the claim relates the width of the device to the width of an unclaimed solar panel, wherein the cleaning device of AL, as modified by Yu to have a size capable of spanning gaps between panels, would obviously be wider than at least one solar panel (particularly any panel substantially smaller than those intended to be cleaned by AL or Yu).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Yu further discloses that the multiple extensions are arranged in a symmetrical manner about the main body such that a center of gravity of the surface cleaning device is located at the main body (due to the symmetrical arrangement, the center of gravity will be very close to a geometric center of the cleaner, which will be located at the main body).
Regarding claim 11, Yu further teaches that a distance between a pair of adjacent surface wheels (1 and 2 or 1 and 3) exceeds a first predetermined distance (no distance defined, wherein the spacing shown by Yu exceeds any predetermined distance that is less than the shown distance), wherein at least one of the pair is an extension wheel.
Regarding claim 12, Yu further discloses that the distance between the auxiliary wheels is greater than twice the gap width between panels and that the cleaner can be used on panels as long as the spacing is within the spanning range designed in the dust removing robot (abstract), thus indicating that the length of the extensions and spacing of the wheels thereon is a result effective variable, which limits the size of gap that the cleaner may span. Therefore, the claimed range of “greater than 20 centimeters” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to allow the cleaner to span gaps of at least 20 centimeters (see MPEP 2144.05, section II; the applicant places no criticality or evidence of unexpected results on the claimed range, wherein 20 centimeters is a relatively small spacing between panels, which would easily be spanned by the extensions taught by Yu if/when having a length greater than 20 cm, and thus spacing at least the furthest extension wheels 2 from the opposite extension wheel 2 by well over 20cm).
Regarding claim 15, AL and Yu both further disclose movement mechanisms (engine 13 and wheels 118 of AL, not numbered but motor and wheels shown in Fig. 1 of Yu) that are configured to move the surface cleaning device in relation to the solar panels.
Regarding claim 16, AL further discloses that the movement mechanism comprises one or more rotating elements (wheels 118 of AL and at least two wheels of Yu, assuming an equivalent drive on the opposite side of the body in Fig. 1) for rotating at least some wheels of a group of wheels of the surface cleaning device.
Regarding claim 18, AL and Yu both further discloses that the at least some wheels comprise a wheel (118 of AL, 1 of Yu) that is not an extension wheel.
Claims 3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allouche et al. (2019/0214940) in view of Yu et al. (CN 209407044 U) as applied to claim 1-2, and further in view of Flores Garrido et al. (11,824,492; earliest priority 1 February 2019; to be referred to hereinafter as FG).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of AL and Yu provides the surface cleaning, as discussed supra, with AL disclosing the wheels (118) for engaging a rail, and Yu disclosing plural extension wheels (2, 3) in the form of surface wheels for engaging a surface being cleaned, but AL and Yu fail to disclose side wheels that are configured to interface with sidewalls of the solar panels. FG discloses a similar surface cleaner, also for solar panels, and teaches that the wheels comprise surface wheels (14) for engaging the surface being cleaned, and side wheels (15) located adjacent to each of the surface wheels and configured to interface with sidewalls of the solar panels for keeping the modules in a correct position in relation to the array of panels (Col. 9, lines 60-63) and functioning as a suspension element for the cleaner (Col. 11, lines 19-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the cleaner of AL, as modified by Yu, with additional side wheels for engaging with sidewalls of the solar panels, particularly when used on panels not having the guide rails taught by AL, to keep the modules in a correct position in relation to the array of panels and function as a suspension element for the cleaner, as taught by FG.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, when provided with the side wheels adjacent to each surface wheel, as taught by FG, the side wheels will have similar spacing as the surface wheels, which will exceed a second predetermined distance (could be the same or less than the first predetermined distance) of at least 20cm, as discussed for claims 11 and 12 above.
Claims 7-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allouche et al. (2019/0214940) in view of Yu et al. (CN 209407044 U) as applied to claim 1-2, and further in view of Bailey et al. (CN 110769947; to be referred to hereinafter as BA).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of AL and Yu provides the cleaner having wheels on the main body and wheels on the extensions of Yu, as discussed supra, but fails to disclose rotating elements for rotating at least some of the extension wheels. BA discloses another similar cleaner for solar panels, and teaches that “the drive system for the cleaner may include any suitable number of [wheels] (for example, two or more than two wheels)”, “may comprise one or more motor… configured to directly drive one or more wheels”, “may use any suitable number of wheels (e.g., a set of two wheels) to instead of the third wheel 214” and that “all of the wheels may be driving wheel. That is, not all of the wheels must be driven by the drive system 206. one or more wheels 208, and optionally, all wheels 208 can contact the surface of the same rail with the solar panel support array and along its driving.” (all on page 8 of English language translation of Bailey). Therefore, BA teaches that multiple wheels may be provided and that some or all of the wheels may be drive wheels in contact with the solar panels being cleaned. Therefore, although AL and Yu disclosed driving means for the wheels on the main body, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide drive means for all wheels of the cleaner, including at least one or more of the extension wheels taught by Yu, wherein driving of all wheels, also commonly referred to has all-wheel drive will be particularly advantageous when spanning a gap, as taught by Yu, as some wheels will obviously be positioned out of contact with any surface when located over the gap. Thus, all-wheel drive, including extension wheels taught by Yu, would ensure that the cleaner can continue moving even if the gap is near the full length of the cleaner including the extensions, as long as at least one of the extension wheels is in contact with a surface of the solar panels. NOTE: although Yu discloses that the extension wheels (2/3) are not driven wheels, there is no disclosure teaching away, or providing any reason that the extension wheels should not be driven.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, BA further discloses that the driving means may comprise a “chain drive system 210 and drive gear motor of the one or more wheels 212 via a chain drive system” and “may comprise one or more motor” wherein such a drive system, when configured to drive multiple wheels will obviously comprise at least one rotating motor and one or more mechanical transmission elements for transmitting rotational motion from the one or more rotating motor to at least some of the extension wheels, wherein the one or more mechanical transmission elements comprises chains and sprockets, as taught by BA, and (although BA does not specifically disclose sprockets, the chain drive would be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art to require some form of sprocket for the chain to interact with the driven wheel).
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above for claim 7, it would have been obvious to drive at least some, if not all of the extension wheels, such that it further would have been obvious for the movement mechanism (drive means) from claim 16 to drive at least some of the extension wheels.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allouche et al. (2019/0214940) in view of Yu et al. (CN 209407044 U) and Bailey et al. (CN 110769947) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Kwon et al. (WO 2020/149508A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of AL, Yu and BA provides the cleaner having a plurality of driven wheels and a transmission comprising chains and sprockets, with BA providing minimal specific structure for the driving means, and the combination fails to disclose that an axel may be provided that couples extension wheels that are opposite one another. Kwon discloses another similar cleaner for solar panels, and teaches a drive means for driving plural wheels via a single motor, where opposed driven wheels may be driven via a drive connected to a shaft (213121), and gears/pulleys (212123) positioned on the shaft to drive wheels on opposite ends of the shaft, with a chain/belt (B) driving the shaft, thus allowing for a single motor to drive more than one wheel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide a similar drive, as taught by Kwon, using the chains and sprockets taught by BA, with at least one axle that couples extension wheels opposite to one another, to drive multiple wheels with a single motor, thus reducing number of components (as opposed to individual motors for each wheel), which will effectively reduce size of the cleaner, cost and assembly time (due to reduced motors) and to ensure the wheels are driven in unison (via shaft connection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lifshitz et al. (WO 2023/181015 A1) discloses another cleaning device having similar structure and function as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 22 October 2025