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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 as amended in applicant’s response dated 08 January 2026 are presently under consideration.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 6 have overcome the indefiniteness rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) which is thus withdrawn.
Upon further search and consideration of applicant’s newly amended claims, the prior art rejection of record is maintained and updated to show where any new limitations are taught.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s arguments and remarks to the prior art of Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569), Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016), Smith et al (US 2015/0023017) and Deng et al (CN 107781773A) recited on pages 6-8 of the response dated 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In particular applicant is arguing against each reference individually in a piecemeal manner arguing each reference does not teach features they were not relied upon individually to teach. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant later argues the prior art is not directed to solving the same problem as applicant’s claimed invention, but this is not found persuasive as the motivation and rationale to modify a reference can be different from that of the inventor’s or to solve a different problem. See MPEP 2144:
IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant further argues there are many ways to combine the four prior art references that do not produce the claimed invention. This argument is not found persuasive as the rejection of claim 1 is based on a combination of five references for the particular reasons recited on pages 5-10 in the prior office action dated 08 October 2025 which are ultimately not addressed by applicant’s arguments and not based on other unrecited hypothetical ways to combine the references as alleged by applicant.
Applicant further argues the combination of reference fail to recite the design results of: “Manual adjustment of the photovoltaic angle from 0-90°, increasing power generation efficiency by more than 30% compared to fixed-angle photovoltaic panels”, “ Zero damage during transport of the monitoring lighting components due to the built- in buffer structure in the storage box” and “Seamless switching between mains power and photovoltaic power in emergency scenarios due to the collaborative control of multiple controllers”.
Applicant’s arguments to these recited features have been fully considered but are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the limitations of the claims as the above three recited features are not explicitly recited in the claims or inherently present from the limitations of the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Manual adjustment of the photovoltaic angle from 0-90”, “increasing power generation efficiency by more than 30% compared to fixed-angle photovoltaic panels”, “built- in buffer structure in the storage box”, “Seamless switching between mains power and photovoltaic power in emergency scenarios due to the collaborative control of multiple controllers”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants further arguments and remarks to claim 1 are moot as they depend from the arguments rebutted above.
Regarding claim 4, applicant’s arguments and remarks to the prior art of Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569), Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016), Smith et al (US 2015/0023017) and Deng et al (CN 107781773A) recited on pages 9-10 of the response dated 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art does not mention "synchronous adjustment function"-its support legs require individual manual adjustment, which takes more than 5 minutes to level on uneven ground after a disaster, failing to meet the "rapid deployment" requirements in emergency scenarios and that Claim 4 implicitly includes the technical feature of "synchronous adjustment of the four support legs": through a linkage mechanism, the trailer can be leveled within 30 seconds with a leveling accuracy of ±0.5°.
Applicant’s arguments to these recited features have been fully considered but are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the limitations of the claims as the above recited features are not explicitly recited in the claims or inherently present from the limitations of the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 7, applicant’s arguments and remarks to the prior art of Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569), Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016), Smith et al (US 2015/0023017) and Deng et al (CN 107781773A) recited on pages 10-11 of the response dated 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In particular applicant is arguing against each reference individually in a piecemeal manner arguing each reference does not teach features they were not relied upon individually to teach. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As recited in the rejection of claim 7, modified Ritchie discloses a power system of the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1, comprising the photovoltaic panels (Ritchie, [0036] Figs. 1-5 see: solar panels 64), the battery energy storage assembly (Ritchie, [0028]-[0032] Figs. 4-6 see: battery pack 52 and control unit 50 installed in a housing 46 of base unit 45), the MPPT controller for photovoltaic access (Robertson, [0061], [0064], Figs. 3-4), the AC/DC controller for mains power access, the DC/DC voltage stabilizing controller for supplying power to the monitoring and lighting assembly, the DC/AC controller for emergency power supply (Curran’569, [0048]-[0049] Fig. 7 see: electronic system 700 including a controller 740 with microinverters and/or inverters for converting energy to AC or DC and connected to an external power source 730 (mains power) allowing an external power source to charge the batteries 770 and allow the electronic system 700 to supply DC power at a desired voltage to a load (electrical output 750) and see Curran’614 at paras [0053], [0091]-[0092], [0139] see: chassis 15 may provide a power converter to convert the power from DC to AC power, from AC to DC power, and/or from DC to DC power at a desired voltage level and include various controllers, such as controllers utilized to manage the power generated by panels 25, recharging controller) for the express purposes of providing the proper DC output power to the load (monitoring and lighting assembly), and Robertson further discloses a photovoltaic access switch S1 (Robertson, [0061], see: providing user controls to discontinue charging of batteries from solar power modules) and both Ritchie and Robertson further disclose a monitoring and lighting assembly power supply switch S2 (Ritchie, [0031] Fig. 8 see: control unit 50 further includes switches 56 for controlling service providing unit) (Robertson, [0014], [0061], see: providing one or more user-accessible controls to turn lighting modules on or off).
Applicant further argues the combination of reference fail to recite features to multi-controller collaboration and switching logic but such features are not recited in the claims and thus applicant’s arguments to these features have been fully considered but are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the limitations of the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 2, applicant’s arguments and remarks to the prior art of Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569), Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016), Smith et al (US 2015/0023017), Deng et al (CN 107781773A), and Casteel (US 2014/0285005) recited on pages 11-12 of the response dated 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In particular applicant is arguing against each reference individually in a piecemeal manner arguing each reference does not teach features they were not relied upon individually to teach. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As recited in the rejection of claim 2, Ritchie discloses the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1 wherein the photovoltaic panels are arranged above the electrical box serving as roofs (Ritchie, [0036] Figs. 1-5 see: solar panels 64 arranged over housing 46 of base unit 45), and are foldable in a transverse direction of the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer to serve as roofs (Curran’569, [0039], Figs. 1-4 see: solar panels foldable and arranged above main support frame 20 providing cover).
Ritchie does not explicitly disclose where the photovoltaic panels are arranged above the storage box.
Casteel discloses a photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer having a photovoltaic panels are arranged above the electrical and storage boxes and foldable in a transverse direction of the photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer to serve as roofs (Casteel, [0031]-[0032] Figs. 1-3 see: photovoltaic solar panels 12 on a hinged frame 26 foldable by actuators 38 to serve as a roof for cabinet 48 and box 60).
Casteel and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with photovoltaic mobile integrated trailers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Casteel such that the photovoltaic panels of Ritchie are arranged above the storage box to also fold and serve as roofs as in Casteel (Casteel, [0031]-[0032] Figs. 1-3 see: photovoltaic solar panels 12 on a hinged frame 26 foldable by actuators 38 to serve as a roof for cabinet 48 and box 60) for the express benefit of also serving as a roof for the storage box as with the electrical box.
As recited above, Casteel at paras [0031]-[0032] Figs. 1-3 discloses the photovoltaic solar panels 12 on a hinged frame 26 foldable by actuators 38 to serve as a roof for cabinet 48 and box 60 and thus teaches the photovoltaic panels are arranged above the electrical and storage boxes and foldable in a transverse direction to serve as roofs. Thus applicant’s arguments to the prior art not teaching these limitations are moot.
Applicant’s arguments to the prior art not teaching lateral folding/unfolding are moot as they are not commensurate in scope with claim 2 given “lateral folding/unfolding” is not recited.
Applicant further argues the folding configuration of Casteel cannot be adapted to a mobile trailer, but Casteel is directed to a mobile trailer (Fig. 1).
Applicants further arguments and remarks to claim 2 are moot as they depend from the arguments rebutted above.
Regarding claim 3, applicant’s arguments and remarks to the prior art of Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569), Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016), Smith et al (US 2015/0023017), Deng et al (CN 107781773A), and Pearson (US 2022/0149778) recited on pages 12-14 of the response dated 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In particular applicant is arguing against each reference individually in a piecemeal manner arguing each reference does not teach features they were not relied upon individually to teach. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As recited below, regarding claim 3 modified Ritchie discloses the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1 and Ritchie discloses wherein the monitoring cameras and the lighting fixture are arranged on the cloud computing data processing control box (Ritchie, [0038], Fig. 7 see: cameras 67 and lighting fixtures illustrated mounted on box 66B). Ritchie does not explicitly disclose the sound amplification device arranged on the cloud computing data processing control box.
Pearson discloses a solar electronics platform including a head portion on a mast platform allowing it to be raised and lowered where the head portion has sound amplification devices, cameras and lighting fixtures mounted to its housing (Pearson, [0060], [0078], Figs. 1-3, 11-12 see: canopy or head portion 116/216 with security modules 190 including cameras, lights, and auditory alarms mounted to its housing 117).
Pearson and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with solar powered lighting and monitoring platforms.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Pearson such that the sound amplification device of Ritchie is arranged on the cloud computing data processing control box of Ritchie as in Pearson (Pearson, [0060], [0078], Figs. 1-3, 11-12 see: canopy or head portion 116/216 with security modules 190 including cameras, lights, and auditory alarms mounted to its housing 117) as such a modification would have amounted to the arrangement of a known security module placement for its intended use in the known environment of a solar powered lighting and monitoring platform to accomplish the entirely expected result of providing a higher platform for providing sound amplification.
Applicant further argues the combination of reference fail to recite features to “data integration” and “real-time uploading of monitoring data+ remote command execution” but such features are not recited in the claims and thus applicant’s arguments to these features have been fully considered but are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the limitations of the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 5, applicant’s arguments and remarks to the prior art of Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569), Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016), Smith et al (US 2015/0023017), Deng et al (CN 107781773A), and Schelhaas et al (US 2020/0280280) recited on pages 14-15 of the response dated 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In particular applicant is arguing against each reference individually in a piecemeal manner arguing each reference does not teach features they were not relied upon individually to teach. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the combination of reference fail to recite features to “a mechanical pawl-type self-locking mechanism” but such features are not recited in the claims and thus applicant’s arguments to these features have been fully considered but are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the limitations of the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 6, applicant’s arguments and remarks to the prior art of Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569), Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016), Smith et al (US 2015/0023017), Deng et al (CN 107781773A), Cockinos (US 2025/0136308) and Miller (US 2011/0221203) recited on pages 15-16 of the response dated 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In particular applicant is arguing against each reference individually in a piecemeal manner arguing each reference does not teach features they were not relied upon individually to teach. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding claim 6 modified Ritchie discloses the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1 wherein the lifting rod assembly is arranged at a central position at a front end portion of the chassis frame assembly (Ritchie, Figs. 3-5 see: adjustable service providing unit 20 provided centrally at the front end of trailer frame 24), but modified Ritchie does not explicitly disclose where the storage box is arranged at a rear portion of the trailer, and a photovoltaic panel docking platform is provided on a lifting rod of the lifting rod assembly.
Cockinos teaches a solar powered trailer with extendable mast (Fig. 1) and further includes a storage box arranged at a rear portion of the trailer ([0043], [0054], Fig. 1 see: trailer 105 including a rear second compartment or cabin 140 for storage).
Cockinos and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with solar powered trailers with extendable masts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Cockinos such that the storage box of modified Ritchie arranged at a rear portion of the trailer as in Cockinos ([0043], [0054], Fig. 1 see: trailer 105 including a rear second compartment or cabin 140 for storage) as Cockinos notes such storage compartments can be added rearranged or removed, depending on the design requirements of the system (para [0043]) and such a modification would have amounted to the use of a known storage box arrangement for its intended use in a known environment of a solar powered trailer with extendable mast to accomplish the entirely expected result of providing access to additional storage space.
Modified Ritchies does not explicitly disclose a photovoltaic panel docking platform is provided on the lifting rod of the lifting rod assembly.
Miller teaches a portable solar power generating apparatus comprising a photovoltaic panel docking platform provided on a portable vertical support (Miller, [0038]-[0040] Figs. 1, and 3-4 see: portable vertical support 34 including a releasable attachment for connecting to an extensible support 16 at second end 19 which supports solar panels).
Miller and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with portable solar powered generating apparatuses.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Miller to further include a photovoltaic panel docking platform as in Miller provided on a lifting rod of the lifting rod assembly of Ritchie (Miller, [0038]-[0040] Figs. 1, and 3-4 see: portable vertical support 34 including a releasable attachment for connecting to extensible support 16 at second end 19 which supports solar panels) to provide another support point allowing for additional solar panel deployment.
Applicant later argues the prior art is not directed to solving the same problem as applicant’s claimed invention, but this is not found persuasive as the motivation and rationale to modify a reference can be different from that of the inventor’s or to solve a different problem. See MPEP 2144:
IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Applicant’s arguments to claims 1-7 are thus found unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), and further in view of Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569) and in further view of Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016) and further in view of Smith et al (US 2015/0023017) and further in view of Deng et al (CN 107781773A, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1 Ritchie discloses a photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer (Figs. 1-4), comprising a monitoring and lighting assembly ([0037], Figs. 1, 3 and 7 see: service module 66 including lighting module 66A), a lifting rod assembly ([0037], [0041], Figs. 1-4 see: adjustable service providing unit 20 including telescoping assembly 68), a chassis frame assembly ([0021]-[0022], Fig. 4 see: trailer frame 24 with trailer hitch 32), an adjustable photovoltaic assembly ([0020], [0036] Figs. 1-4 see: renewable energy power source 18), a power system ([0029]-[0032] Fig. 6 see: battery pack 52 and control unit 50), wherein the monitoring and lighting assembly is placed at a top portion of the lifting rod assembly ([0037], [0041] Figs. 1, 3 and 7 see: service module 66 on top of telescopic pole 70 of telescoping assembly 68), and the monitoring and lighting assembly comprises monitoring cameras ([0038], Fig. 7 see: service module 66 including surveillance cameras 67), a lighting fixture ([0037], Figs. 1, 3 and 7 see: service module 66 including lighting module 66A), a sound amplification device ([0038], Fig. 7 see: service module 66 including audible warning devices 71), and a control box ([0038]-[0039] Fig. 7 see: surveillance module 66B having a box with controlling adjustment mechanisms); the adjustable photovoltaic assembly comprises a photovoltaic bracket ([0036], Figs. 4-5 see: frame 62), photovoltaic panels ([0036] Figs. 1-5 see: solar panels 64); and the power system is installed in an electrical box and comprises a battery energy storage assembly ([0028]-[0032] Figs. 4-6 see: battery pack 52 and control unit 50 installed in a housing 46 of base unit 45).
Ritchie does not explicitly disclose the trailer further comprising a storage box where during transportation the monitoring and lighting assembly can be removed from the top portion of the lifting rod assembly and placed in the storage box.
Ritchie does not explicitly disclose where the control box of the monitoring and lighting assembly is a cloud computing data processing control box.
Ritchie does not explicitly disclose the adjustable photovoltaic assembly comprises a hand-cranked photovoltaic rotating support for adjusting support angles of the photovoltaic panels or where the power system comprises an MPPT controller for photovoltaic access, an AC/DC controller for mains power access, a DC/DC voltage stabilizing controller for supplying power to the monitoring and lighting assembly, and a DC/AC controller for emergency power supply.
Curran’569 discloses a photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer comprising a hand-cranked photovoltaic rotating support for adjusting support angles of photovoltaic panels (Curran’569, [0039], Figs. 1A, 1E see: a hand crank can be used to for rotation of rod 350 for retraction/deployment of solar panels at a desired angle). Curran’569 at para [0034] also incorporates U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/010,406 (US PG Pub 2011/0253614) ‘Curran’614’ by reference where Curran’614 also discloses a hand-cranked photovoltaic rotating support for adjusting support angles of photovoltaic panels (Curran’614, [0050], [0053], Figs. 1-3 see: a crank allowing manual deployment of solar panels 25 and adjustment of their angle).
Curran’569 further discloses a power system comprising an AC/DC controller for mains power access, a DC/DC voltage stabilizing controller for supplying power to a load, and a DC/AC controller for emergency power supply (Curran’569, [0048]-[0049] Fig. 7 see: electronic system 700 including a controller 740 with microinverters and/or inverters for converting energy to AC or DC and connected to an external power source 730 (mains power) allowing an external power source to charge the batteries 770 and allow the electronic system 700 to supply DC power at a desired voltage to a load (electrical output 750)). Curran’614 likewise discloses a power system comprising an AC/DC controller for mains power access, a DC/DC voltage stabilizing controller for supplying power to a load, and a DC/AC controller for emergency power supply (Curran’614, [0053], [0091]-[0092], [0139] see: chassis 15 may provide a power converter to convert the power from DC to AC power, from AC to DC power, and/or from DC to DC power at a desired voltage level and include various controllers, such as controllers utilized to manage the power generated by panels 25, recharging controllers).
Curran’569 and Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of integrated mobile photovoltaic assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Curran’569 such that the adjustable photovoltaic assembly of Ritchie further comprises a hand-cranked photovoltaic rotating support for adjusting support angles of the photovoltaic panels as in Curran’569 (Curran’569, [0039], Figs. 1A, 1E see: a hand crank can be used to for rotation of rod 350 for retraction/deployment of solar panels at a desired angle and see in Curran’614 at paras [0050], [0053], Figs. 1-3 a crank allowing manual deployment of solar panels 25 and adjustment of their angle) for the purpose of manually adjusting the angles of the solar panels relative to the sun to optimize their power production as in Curran’569 (para [0007]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Curran’569 such that the power system of Ritchie comprises an AC/DC controller for mains power access, a DC/DC voltage stabilizing controller for supplying power to the monitoring and lighting assembly, and a DC/AC controller for emergency power supply as in Curran’569 (Curran’569, [0048]-[0049] Fig. 7 see: electronic system 700 including a controller 740 with microinverters and/or inverters for converting energy to AC or DC and connected to an external power source 730 (mains power) allowing an external power source to charge the batteries 770 and allow the electronic system 700 to supply DC power at a desired voltage to a load (electrical output 750) and see Curran’614 at paras [0053], [0091]-[0092], [0139] see: chassis 15 may provide a power converter to convert the power from DC to AC power, from AC to DC power, and/or from DC to DC power at a desired voltage level and include various controllers, such as controllers utilized to manage the power generated by panels 25, recharging controller) for the express purposes of providing the proper DC output power to the load (monitoring and lighting assembly) of Ritchie and allowing the batteries of Ritchie to be charged from an external power source (mains power) and allowing the apparatus of Ritchie to output a desired AC power from it DC sources (batteries/ PV panels) as in Curran’569 (see paras [0048]-[0049]).
Modified Ritchie does not explicitly disclose where the power system comprises an MPPT controller for photovoltaic access, but such controllers are well known as in Robertson which teaches a mobile solar powered light tower where the unit control module for charging the batteries from the solar panels includes a includes a maximum power point tracking (MPPT) solar, battery charge and load controller for maximizing solar gain and to prevent overcharging or over-discharging of the batteries (Robertson, [0061], [0064], Figs. 3-4).
Robertson and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of integrated mobile photovoltaic assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Robertson such that the power system of Ritchie further comprises an MPPT controller for photovoltaic access as in Robertson (Robertson, [0061], [0064], Figs. 3-4) as Robertson teaches these MPPT controllers maximize solar gain and prevent overcharging or over-discharging of the batteries (Robertson, [0061], [0064], Figs. 3-4).
Smith further teaches a portable low energy extendable light tower where in the transport position the lighting assembly can be removed from the top portion of the lifting rod placed in a storage box of the apparatus (Smith, [0018], [0021], Figs. 1-4 see: boxes 27 on base 12 used to house electrical equipment including LED panels 26 detached from telescoping mast 18 during transport (Fig. 4)).
Smith and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of mobile lighting assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Smith such that the apparatus of Ritchie further comprises a storage box where during transportation the monitoring and lighting assembly of Ritchie can be removed from the top portion of the lifting rod assembly of Ritchie and placed in the storage box as in Smith (Smith, [0018], [0021], Figs. 1-4 see: boxes 27 on base 12 used to house electrical equipment including LED panels 26 detached from telescoping mast 18 during transport (Fig. 4)) for the express purpose of providing protection to the monitoring and lighting assembly of Ritchie during transport.
Deng teaches a solar powered monitoring and lighting assembly comprising a cloud computing data processing control box (Deng, see pages 1-2 of the translation Figs. 1-3 see: intelligent street lamp 1 with solar panel 9 including a power control board/electric control panel 18 including a processor 16, a collecting module 14, execution module 15, and communication module 17 where the collection module 14 collects data from air monitor 11 and light sensor 10 to perform integration and processing of the data by processor 16, and then transmits the data through the communication module 17 to cloud platform 12).
Deng and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with solar powered monitoring and lighting assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Smith such that the control box of the monitoring and lighting assembly of Ritchie includes the functionality of being a cloud computing data processing control box as taught by Deng (Deng, see pages 1-2 of the translation Figs. 1-3 see: intelligent street lamp 1 with solar panel 9 including a power control board/electric control panel 18 including a processor 16, a collecting module 14, execution module 15, and communication module 17 where the collection module 14 collects data from air monitor 11 and light sensor 10 to perform integration and processing of the data by processor 16, and then transmits the data through the communication module 17 to cloud platform 12) for the purpose of providing remote control and unified control and management of the solar powered monitoring and lighting assembly of Ritchie as in Deng (see Abstract and bottom of page 2 of translation).
Regarding claim 4 modified Ritchie discloses the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1 and Ritchie further discloses wherein the chassis frame assembly comprises a vehicle chassis ([0021]-[0022], Figs. 4-5 see: trailer hitch 32 with A frame structure 32A), a guide wheel ([0021]-[0022], Fig. 4 see: guide wheel at front of A frame structure 32A), four supporting legs ([0024]-[0026], Figs. 3-4 see: four support feet 36) and a frame structure ([0021]-[0022], Fig. 4 see: trailer frame 24).
Regarding claim 7 modified Ritchie discloses a power system of the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1, comprising the photovoltaic panels (Ritchie, [0036] Figs. 1-5 see: solar panels 64), the battery energy storage assembly (Ritchie, [0028]-[0032] Figs. 4-6 see: battery pack 52 and control unit 50 installed in a housing 46 of base unit 45), the MPPT controller for photovoltaic access (Robertson, [0061], [0064], Figs. 3-4), the AC/DC controller for mains power access, the DC/DC voltage stabilizing controller for supplying power to the monitoring and lighting assembly, the DC/AC controller for emergency power supply (Curran’569, [0048]-[0049] Fig. 7 see: electronic system 700 including a controller 740 with microinverters and/or inverters for converting energy to AC or DC and connected to an external power source 730 (mains power) allowing an external power source to charge the batteries 770 and allow the electronic system 700 to supply DC power at a desired voltage to a load (electrical output 750) and see Curran’614 at paras [0053], [0091]-[0092], [0139] see: chassis 15 may provide a power converter to convert the power from DC to AC power, from AC to DC power, and/or from DC to DC power at a desired voltage level and include various controllers, such as controllers utilized to manage the power generated by panels 25, recharging controller) for the express purposes of providing the proper DC output power to the load (monitoring and lighting assembly), and Robertson further discloses a photovoltaic access switch S1 (Robertson, [0061], see: providing user controls to discontinue charging of batteries from solar power modules) and both Ritchie and Robertson further disclose a monitoring and lighting assembly power supply switch S2 (Ritchie, [0031] Fig. 8 see: control unit 50 further includes switches 56 for controlling service providing unit) (Robertson, [0014], [0061], see: providing one or more user-accessible controls to turn lighting modules on or off).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), in view of Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569) in view of Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016) in view of Smith et al (US 2015/0023017) in view of Deng et al (CN 107781773A, reference made to attached English machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Casteel (US 2014/0285005).
Regarding claim 2 modified Ritchie discloses the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1 wherein the photovoltaic panels are arranged above the electrical box serving as roofs (Ritchie, [0036] Figs. 1-5 see: solar panels 64 arranged over housing 46 of base unit 45), and are foldable in a transverse direction of the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer to serve as roofs (Curran’569, [0039], Figs. 1-4 see: solar panels foldable and arranged above main support frame 20 providing cover).
Ritchie does not explicitly disclose where the photovoltaic panels are arranged above the storage box.
Casteel discloses a photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer having a photovoltaic panels are arranged above the electrical and storage boxes and foldable in a transverse direction of the photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer to serve as roofs (Casteel, [0031]-[0032] Figs. 1-3 see: photovoltaic solar panels 12 on a hinged frame 26 foldable by actuators 38 to serve as a roof for cabinet 48 and box 60).
Casteel and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with photovoltaic mobile integrated trailers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Casteel such that the photovoltaic panels of Ritchie are arranged above the storage box to also fold and serve as roofs as in Casteel (Casteel, [0031]-[0032] Figs. 1-3 see: photovoltaic solar panels 12 on a hinged frame 26 foldable by actuators 38 to serve as a roof for cabinet 48 and box 60) for the express benefit of also serving as a roof for the storage box as with the electrical box.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), in view of Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569) in view of Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016) in view of Smith et al (US 2015/0023017) in view of Deng et al (CN 107781773A, reference made to attached English machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Pearson (US 2022/0149778).
Regarding claim 3 modified Ritchie discloses the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1 and Ritchie discloses wherein the monitoring cameras and the lighting fixture are arranged on the cloud computing data processing control box (Ritchie, [0038], Fig. 7 see: cameras 67 and lighting fixtures illustrated mounted on box 66B). Ritchie does not explicitly disclose the sound amplification device arranged on the cloud computing data processing control box.
Pearson discloses a solar electronics platform including a head portion on a mast platform allowing it to be raised and lowered where the head portion has sound amplification devices, cameras and lighting fixtures mounted to its housing (Pearson, [0060], [0078], Figs. 1-3, 11-12 see: canopy or head portion 116/216 with security modules 190 including cameras, lights, and auditory alarms mounted to its housing 117).
Pearson and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with solar powered lighting and monitoring platforms.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Pearson such that the sound amplification device of Ritchie is arranged on the cloud computing data processing control box of Ritchie as in Pearson (Pearson, [0060], [0078], Figs. 1-3, 11-12 see: canopy or head portion 116/216 with security modules 190 including cameras, lights, and auditory alarms mounted to its housing 117) as such a modification would have amounted to the arrangement of a known security module placement for its intended use in the known environment of a solar powered lighting and monitoring platform to accomplish the entirely expected result of providing a higher platform for providing sound amplification.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), in view of Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569) in view of Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016) in view of Smith et al (US 2015/0023017) in view of Deng et al (CN 107781773A, reference made to attached English machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Schelhaas et al (US 2020/0280280).
Regarding claim 5 modified Ritchie discloses the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1 wherein the lifting rod assembly comprises a lifting rod ([0041], Figs. 1-4, 7 see: telescoping assembly 68 with a telescoping pole 70) and bottom end portions of the lifting rod are fixedly connected to a frame structure of the chassis frame assembly ([0041], Fig. 4 see: bottom of telescoping assembly 68 fixed to trailer frame 24). Ritchie teaches the lifting rod assembly can be raised and lowered with a manual device as the lift mechanism 72 and Robertson further discloses such manual lift mechanisms comprising a hand-cranked rotating rope structure and is configured to be used to manually lift the lifting rod (Robertson, [0058]-[0059], Figs. 2-3, 6-7 see: extension of mast manually controlled through a hand cranked winching component 770 and cable connection 771) but does not explicitly discloses the hand-cranked rotating rope structure comprises a self-locking function.
Schelhaas discloses a power generating apparatus having an extendable mast in Fig. 2 where the extension mechanism comprises a self-locking function (Schelhaas, [0056] Fig. 2 see: winch apparatus 24 includes a clutch that locks mast 10 at desired heights).
Schelhaas and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with solar powered generator apparatuses.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Schelhaas such that the hand-cranked rotating rope structure of modified Ritchie further comprises a self-locking function as in Schelhaas (Schelhaas, [0056] Fig. 2 see: winch apparatus 24 includes a clutch that locks mast 10 at desired heights) for the express purpose of allowing the telescoping pole of Ritchie to be locked at desired heights as in Schelhaas.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchie (US 2024/0120871), in view of Curran’569 (US 2012/0313569) in view of Robertson et al (US 2012/0201016) in view of Smith et al (US 2015/0023017) in view of Deng et al (CN 107781773A, reference made to attached English machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 4 and 7 above, and further in view of Cockinos (US 2025/0136308) and in further view of Miller (US 2011/0221203).
Regarding claim 6 modified Ritchie discloses the hand-cranked photovoltaic mobile integrated trailer according to claim 1 wherein the lifting rod assembly is arranged at a central position at a front end portion of the chassis frame assembly (Ritchie, Figs. 3-5 see: adjustable service providing unit 20 provided centrally at the front end of trailer frame 24), but modified Ritchie does not explicitly disclose where the storage box is arranged at a rear portion of the trailer, and a photovoltaic panel docking platform is provided on the lifting rod of the lifting rod assembly.
Cockinos teaches a solar powered trailer with extendable mast (Fig. 1) and further includes a storage box arranged at a rear portion of the trailer ([0043], [0054], Fig. 1 see: trailer 105 including a rear second compartment or cabin 140 for storage).
Cockinos and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with solar powered trailers with extendable masts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Cockinos such that the storage box of modified Ritchie arranged at a rear portion of the trailer as in Cockinos ([0043], [0054], Fig. 1 see: trailer 105 including a rear second compartment or cabin 140 for storage) as Cockinos notes such storage compartments can be added rearranged or removed, depending on the design requirements of the system (para [0043]) and such a modification would have amounted to the use of a known storage box arrangement for its intended use in a known environment of a solar powered trailer with extendable mast to accomplish the entirely expected result of providing access to additional storage space.
Modified Ritchies does not explicitly disclose a photovoltaic panel docking platform is provided on the lifting rod of the lifting rod assembly.
Miller teaches a portable solar power generating apparatus comprising a photovoltaic panel docking platform provided on a portable vertical support (Miller, [0038]-[0040] Figs. 1, and 3-4 see: portable vertical support 34 including a releasable attachment for connecting to an extensible support 16 at second end 19 which supports solar panels).
Miller and modified Ritchie are combinable as they are both concerned with portable solar powered generating apparatuses.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Ritchie in view of Miller to further include a photovoltaic panel docking platform as in Miller provided on the lifting rod of the lifting rod assembly of Ritchie (Miller, [0038]-[0040] Figs. 1, and 3-4 see: portable vertical support 34 including a releasable attachment for connecting to extensible support 16 at second end 19 which supports solar panels) to provide another support point allowing for additional solar panel deployment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726