DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/735,869, filed on 06/06/2024, which is a continuation of 17/480,584, filed on 09/21/2021, which is a continuation of application number 16/163,659, filed on 10/18/2018, which is a continuation of application number 14/739,055, filed on 06/15/2015, and which claims priority to provisional application number 62/011,997, filed on 06/13/2014.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 01/05/2026.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 17-22) in the reply received on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
Claims 1-16, 23, and 24 are withdrawn.
Claims 17-22 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
The examiner notes that claim 2’s status identifier should state only “Withdrawn” instead of “Withdrawn Withdrawn”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites “the flexible PV array”, but this was not introduced in an earlier recitation and lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Since the preamble only recites a single flexible PV module, the recited array create ambiguity to the number of required modules, since an array often means a plurality of an associated component. Claims 18 and 19 also recite “the flexible PV array” without proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 recites “keders of the tensioning members”, but there are no keders of the tensioning members previously recited. Only at least one keder is coupled to the flexible underlying membrane. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-22 each recite “the flexible PV panels”, but this was not introduced in an earlier recitation and lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The examiner cannot determine if this recitation refers back to the flexible PV module or the flexible PV array, or some other component such as the membrane.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The Examiner did not locate any prior art reference that, alone or in combination with another reference, teaches or suggests the claimed invention. The Examiner notes, however, that the claims in their present form contain a significant number of unclear phrases and terms that renders a complete search of the prior art problematic if not unfeasible. The Examiner could not conclusively determine the exact structure or component arrangement of the claimed device. The closest prior art references include DALLAND (US 2011/0277809 A1), WARNER (US 2007/0062567 A1), TOPF (US 2,853,758), FABRIC (“Tension structure connection details – Fabric Architecture,” retrieved from archive.org captured as early as July 15, 2010), and NILSEN (WO 2013/162376 A1). These references together broadly describe using keders, grommet strips, and other closely related components to attach flexible photovoltaic arrays to tent-like structures.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights