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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-24 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/15/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured conform” should be “configured to conform”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4 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 3-4 recites the limitation "the clamp body" in lines 1 and 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claims 3-4 will be understood to be dependent upon claim 2, thus obviating the lack of antecedent basis issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mareli (US20200044600A1).
As to claim 1, Mareli discloses a device for cleaning solar panels (abstract) comprising: a sprinkler head (ref 140); an inlet (see portion of ref 150 that attaches to ref 160) attachable to a water conduit (ref 160); a fluid path leading from the water inlet to the sprinkler head (see ref 150 leading to ref 140); a clamp (combination of refs 110, 120, & 130) configured to clamp to a solar panel and support said sprinkler head, said inlet, and said fluid path (see Figs.1E-2 & 12A-12D).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8-12, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mareli (US20200044600A1) in view of Yu (JP2018531143A).
As to claim 2, Mareli teaches the device of claim 1 wherein, the clamp includes a clamp body (ref 130) including: a sprinkler connector (ref 450) on an upper portion of the clamp body; an upper support (ref 452) on the upper portion of the clamp body; at least one slot (refs 412). A plugging insert (ref 120) comprising a lower support (ref 220 or 204) and at least one fastening hook (refs 230) configured to inserted through the at least one slot in the clamp body and reversible locked in place by a securing element (ref 208 & [0055]). Mareli does not disclose a conduit inlet on a base of the clamp body configured to be fluidically connected to the sprinkler connector by a fluid path, how the use of an integrated clamp and hose assembly is known in the art as seen by Yu.
Yu discloses an art related nozzle clip assembly for a solar panel (see Figs.1-6 & [0003-0012]) wherein the clip assembly can comprise the fluid path (ref 600) which leads to the nozzle (ref 100). Specifically, the clip assembly allows for attachment to a horizontal water conduit (ref 500) via a base portion of the clamp (see Fig.3 connection of ref 600 to ref 330 via nut-like element) to fluidically connect the sprinkler via the flow path. Such a configuration reduces the number of parts [0030] and facilitates installation and disassembly [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Mareli to provide the water flow path and clamp body in an integrated manner in order to reduce the number of parts and facilitate installation and disassembly (Yu [0028 & 0030]). Further, the use a single piece construction instead of a separate hose and clamp merely presents as a matter of an obvious engineering design choice (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 3, Modified Mareli teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the fluid flow path is integrated with the clamp body (see Mareli in view of Yu). Although Modified Mareli does showcase the flow path being fully integrated within the clamp body, a skilled artisan recognizes that a fully integrated flow path construction merely presents as a matter of an obvious engineering design choice which would merely change the shape of the clamp body so as to assume the flow path therein (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 8, Modified Mareli teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the sprinkler connector comprises a side wall with a rail (see Mareli Fig.4A ref 450 having rail elements on a sidewall).
As to claim 9, Modified Mareli teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the plugging insert is partially hollow (Mareli Figs.3A-3G).
As to claim 10, Modified Mareli teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the plugging insert can conform to panels of different size (Mareli Figs.1A-1E & Fig.5A-12D). Further, such a limitation is intended use and is met so long as the plugging insert is capable of being utilized with solar panels of different shapes and/or sizes.
As to claim 11, Modified Mareli teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the plugging insert comprises a lower support on an upper proximal edge (Mareli Fig.3A ref 228).
As to claim 12, Modified Mareli teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the at least one fastening hook is one a distal end of the plugging insert (see Mareli Figs.3A-3G).
As to claim 16, Modified Mareli teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the device is configured to be connected to a solar panel with drilling welding, screwing or damaging the panel (see Mareli Figs.1A-2 & 7-12D). Further such a limitation is intended use, and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a cleaning device would be attachable without damaging the device needing to be cleaned, otherwise it would be unfit for its intended purpose.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mareli (US20200044600A1) in view of Yu (JP2018531143A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nakagawa (US20150244311A1) and Levy (US20100043851A1).
As to claim 4, Modified Mareli teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the clamp body is a single piece (see Fig.2), but does not disclose the clamp body being made of a polymer product. However, the use of polymers and plastics in solar panel cleaning system is known in the art, as seen by Nakagawa and Levy.
Nakagawa discloses an art related solar panel cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that wear resistant polymers should be utilized for fastening of a cleaning element in order to prevent wear [0049].
Levy discloses an art related solar panel cleaning system (abstract), wherein it is known that component parts of a solar panel cleaning device can be made of injection molded plastic [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Mareli to form the clamp body via a wear resistant polymer, or plastic as such are known materials in the art for such a purpose (Nakagawa [0049] & Levy [0027]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known material for use in solar panel cleaning systems when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mareli (US20200044600A1) in view of Phillips (US3694009A), Bullock (US20170050206A1), and Vachon (US20150377399A1)
As to claim 5, Mareli teaches the device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the conduit inlet penetrating the water conduit, the inlet having a shoulder and narrow neck, or a securing ring and conduit clip. However, such a construction for connection of one flow path to a pipe is well-known in the art, as seen by Phillips, Bullock, and Vachon.
Phillips discloses a clamp assembly (abstract) for connection to a pipe, wherein a fluid path (ref 37 and associated tubing which is connected thereto and including refs 51-54 or refs 24-29) can be connected to a conduit provided within the clamp, such that the inlet (refs 51-54 or 24-29) penetrates into the conduit. The conduit inlet has a shoulder (ref 28 or 54) and a narrow neck (i.e., narrowed portion refs 24-26 or 51-53). The conduit inlet is secured to the conduit via a conduit clip (refs 11 or 39) and a securing ring (refs 17/33 or 44/58). Phillips and Mareli are related in the connection of a fluid line to a main conduit. Since Mareli does not showcase the manner in which the fluid path connects to the main water conduit, a skilled artisan would be motivated to look towards manners of how such a connection is made. Thus, a skilled artisan would naturally look towards Phillips.
Bullock discloses a tubing connector and clamp (abstract) wherein a fluid path (ref 46) can be connected to a conduit (ref 12) such that the inlet (ref 48) penetrates into the conduit (Figs.4-5). The conduit inlet has a shoulder (ref 50) and a narrow neck (i.e., narrowed portion ref 48). The conduit inlet is secured to the conduit via a conduit clip (refs 18/22) and a securing ring (ref 40). Bullock and Mareli are related in the connection of a fluid line to a main conduit. Since Mareli does not showcase the manner in which the fluid path connects to the main water conduit, a skilled artisan would be motivated to look towards manners of how such a connection is made. Thus, a skilled artisan would naturally look towards Bullock.
Vachon discloses a tubing connector system (abstract) wherein a fluid path (ref 104 & ref 150) can be connected to a conduit (ref 106) such that the inlet (ref 150) has a portion (ref 162) which penetrates into the conduit (Figs.4-5). The conduit inlet has a shoulder (see Figs.2-3, barb on ref 152 reads on shoulder) and a narrow neck (i.e., narrow portion compared to tube ref 104). The conduit inlet is secured to the conduit via a conduit clip (ref 124) and a securing ring (refs 170/180). Vachon and Mareli are related in the connection of a fluid line to a main conduit. Since Mareli does not showcase the manner in which the fluid path connects to the main water conduit, a skilled artisan would be motivated to look towards manners of how such a connection is made. Thus, a skilled artisan would naturally look towards Vachon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Mareli to implement the connection method of any of Phillips, Bullock, or Vachon in order to connect the hose to the water conduit. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known manner of connecting one conduit to another, when one is not detailed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mareli (US20200044600A1) in view of Jang (KR200491214Y1) and Wu (CN112452829A).
As to claim 6, Mareli teaches the device of claim 1, wherein it appears the sprayer has a sloped surface for deflecting a spray of liquid to the solar panel (see Figs.1A-2 ref 140). However, Mareli does not clearly show the claimed sloped surface structure, but such a structure is known in the art, as seen by Jang.
Jang discloses an art related solar panel cleaning device [0003-0006], wherein it is shown that a nozzle (Fig.10-11) for cleaning the solar panels has a guide structure (ref 132B) with a sloped inner plane (ref 132B-1) which allows for spreading the liquid to achieve coverage of the panel being sprayed [0048-0049]. Thus, the use of a nozzle for allowing sufficient coverage of the panel is known in the art. Although Jang does not disclose the angle of the spray, solar panel cleaning systems utilized a spray angle within the claimed range is known in the art, as seen by Wu.
Wu discloses an art related solar panel cleaning system (abstract), wherein a known spraying angle for cleaning of solar panels is between 120-130 degrees [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Mareli to utilize a nozzle with a guide structure having a sloped inner surface in order to achieve good coverage of the panel being sprayed (Jang [0048-0049]). Further, as a known angle for spray cleaning of solar panels is 120-130 degrees, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize such an angle with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art also recognizes that the angle of the ejected spray would be varied based on the size of the solar panel to be cleaned (e.g., a smaller/less wide panel requires a smaller angle while a wider panel requires a larger angle), thus a skilled artisan would find it obvious to utilize any spray angle for nozzle, wherein the angle is based on the panel size to be cleaned.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mareli (US20200044600A1).
As to claim 7, Mareli teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the sprinkler head has a rectangular base (see Fig.2). However, a skilled artisan would recognize that the shape of the base would not affect the operation of the nozzle. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize any shape nozzle, including the claimed shape, with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find any shape for the nozzle base to be obvious absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mareli (US20200044600A1) in view of Yu (JP2018531143A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Phillips (US3694009A), Bullock (US20170050206A1), and Vachon (US20150377399A1).
As to claims 13-15, Modified Mareli teaches the device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose the conduit inlet penetrating the water conduit, the inlet having a shoulder and narrow neck, or a securing ring and conduit clip. However, such a construction for connection of one flow path to a pipe is well-known in the art, as seen by Phillips, Bullock, and Vachon.
Phillips discloses a clamp assembly (abstract) for connection to a pipe, wherein a fluid path (ref 37 and associated tubing which is connected thereto and including refs 51-54 or refs 24-29) can be connected to a conduit provided within the clamp, such that the inlet (refs 51-54 or 24-29) penetrates into the conduit. The conduit inlet has a shoulder (ref 28 or 54) and a narrow neck (i.e., narrowed portion refs 24-26 or 51-53). The conduit inlet is secured to the conduit via a conduit clip (refs 11 or 39) and a securing ring (refs 17/33 or 44/58). Phillips and Mareli are related in the connection of a fluid line to a main conduit. Since Mareli does not showcase the manner in which the fluid path connects to the main water conduit, a skilled artisan would be motivated to look towards manners of how such a connection is made. Thus, a skilled artisan would naturally look towards Phillips.
Bullock discloses a tubing connector and clamp (abstract) wherein a fluid path (ref 46) can be connected to a conduit (ref 12) such that the inlet (ref 48) penetrates into the conduit (Figs.4-5). The conduit inlet has a shoulder (ref 50) and a narrow neck (i.e., narrowed portion ref 48). The conduit inlet is secured to the conduit via a conduit clip (refs 18/22) and a securing ring (ref 40). Bullock and Mareli are related in the connection of a fluid line to a main conduit. Since Mareli does not showcase the manner in which the fluid path connects to the main water conduit, a skilled artisan would be motivated to look towards manners of how such a connection is made. Thus, a skilled artisan would naturally look towards Bullock.
Vachon discloses a tubing connector system (abstract) wherein a fluid path (ref 104 & ref 150) can be connected to a conduit (ref 106) such that the inlet (ref 150) has a portion (ref 162) which penetrates into the conduit (Figs.4-5). The conduit inlet has a shoulder (see Figs.2-3, barb on ref 152 reads on shoulder) and a narrow neck (i.e., narrow portion compared to tube ref 104). The conduit inlet is secured to the conduit via a conduit clip (ref 124) and a securing ring (refs 170/180). Vachon and Mareli are related in the connection of a fluid line to a main conduit. Since Mareli does not showcase the manner in which the fluid path connects to the main water conduit, a skilled artisan would be motivated to look towards manners of how such a connection is made. Thus, a skilled artisan would naturally look towards Vachon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Mareli to implement the connection method of any of Phillips, Bullock, or Vachon in order to connect the hose to the water conduit. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known manner of connecting one conduit to another, when one is not detailed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tura (US3788345A) showcases a conduit inlet with shoulder and narrowed neck portion penetrating pipe with a clamp and securing ring provided for connecting the conduit inlet and the pipe (Figs.1-4)
Carlson (US3218093A) showcases a conduit inlet (ref 12) with a shoulder (ref 21) and narrow neck (portion after ref 21), penetrates pipe (ref 11) and has a securing ring (ref 27) and conduit clip (refs 13 & 17).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711