DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-33 are pending.
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 15, 17-18, 23 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.
Re claim 23, claim 23 recites, “the method steps” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the method” and will be interpreted as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 14-15, 17-25, 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Braunstein et al (“Braunstein”) (US 6,421,966).
Re claim 1, Braunstein discloses a sunshade array (Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of sunshade assemblies (30), each sunshade assembly (30) comprising:
a frame system (34, 38) coupled to a building exterior (20);
a photovoltaic panel (65) supported by the frame system (34, 38); and
an electrical raceway (45, 48) coupled to (Fig. 3) the plurality of sunshade assemblies (30), the electrical raceway (45, 48) containing an electrical path (running through and interior to 48) having an electrical connection point (62) to the photovoltaic panel (65) and an electrical output (the left end of 48 in Fig. 9) to an electrical system of the building (Col 2 lines 42-44).
Re claim 2, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 1, wherein each sunshade assembly (30) is individually decoupled from (Fig. 2) the electrical raceway (45, 48).
Re claim 3, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 2, wherein a sunshade assembly (30) is decoupled from (Fig. 2) the electrical raceway (45, 48) by removal of a fastener (56, being a screw).
Re claim 5, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 1, wherein the frame system (34, 38) is supported by a pair of outriggers (34) that are coupled to the building exterior (20).
Re claim 6, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 5, wherein each outrigger (34) of the pair of outriggers (34) are coupled to the building exterior (20) by an anchor (38).
Re claim 7, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 6, wherein the anchor (38) receives a pin (92) that extends inwardly from (Fig. 10) each outrigger (34) of the pair of the outriggers (34).
Re claim 8, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 5, wherein the frame system (34, 38) comprises a plurality of frame members (50, 52) disposed around (Fig. 3) the photovoltaic panel (65).
Re claim 9, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 8, further comprising a pair of support brackets (68), the pair of support brackets (68) being coupled to a support cross member (54) and being coupled to respective outriggers (34) of the pair of outriggers (34).
Re claim 10, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sunshade assemblies (30) comprise a single row (Fig. 1, as the language does not require only a single row) of sunshade assemblies (30).
Re claim 11, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sunshade assemblies (30) is grouped in a linear fashion (Fig. 1).
Re claim 14, Braunstein discloses an electrical raceway (45, 48) for use with a photolytic sunshade array (30), the electrical raceway (45, 48) comprising:
a plurality of structural attachment points (58), each structural attachment point (58) for coupling a sunshade assembly (30 via 44) to the electrical raceway (45, 48);
an electrical path (running through and interior to 48) comprising a plurality of electrical connection points (62) for coupling to a photovoltaic panel (65) of a sunshade assembly (30); and
an electrical output (the left end of 48 in Fig. 9; the exit of the interior of 48) for coupling to an electrical system of a building (Col 2 lines 42-44), the electrical output (left end of 48 in Fig. 9) being coupled to the electrical path (running through and interior to 48).
Re claim 15, Braunstein discloses the electrical raceway of claim 14, wherein the sunshade assembly (30) is individually decoupled from (Fig. 2) the electrical raceway (45, 48).
Re claim 17, Braunstein discloses the electrical raceway of claim 14, wherein the structural attachment point (58) comprises a fastener (56).
Re claim 18, Braunstein discloses the electrical raceway of claim 14, wherein the sunshade assembly (30) comprises: a pair of outriggers (34) that are coupled to the building exterior (20); and a frame system (44, 50, 52) supported by the outriggers (34), the frame system (44, 50, 52) having the photovoltaic panel (65) disposed therein (Fig. 5-6).
Re claim 19, Braunstein discloses a method of installing (Fig. 1-9) a photovoltaic sunshade array (30), the method comprising:
coupling (Fig. 1-9 showing 44, 50 and 52 coupled) a frame system (44, 50, 52) to a pair of outriggers (34) that are coupled to (Fig. 1) a building exterior (20), the frame system (44, 50, 52) containing a photovoltaic panel (65);
coupling (Fig. 1-9 showing 44, 50 and 52 coupled to 43 and 48) the frame system (44, 50 and 52) to an electrical raceway (43, 48); and
coupling (Fig. 5) a first electrical lead (66) from the photovoltaic panel (65) to a second electrical lead (62; and or the connection per Col 2 lines 42-44) that is coupled to an electrical path (interior to 48) that is integrated with an electrical system of the building (Col 2 lines 42-44), the first electrical lead (66) and the second electrical lead (62; and or the connection per Col 2 lines 42-44) being contained within the electrical raceway (43, 48).
Re claim 20, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the photovoltaic sunshade array (30) comprises a plurality of sunshade assemblies (30; Fig. 1).
Re claim 21, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the plurality of sunshade assemblies (30) comprise a single row (Fig. 1, as the language does not require only a single row) of sunshade assemblies (30).
Re claim 22, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the plurality of sunshade assemblies (30) is grouped in a linear fashion (Fig. 1).
Re claim 23, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the steps are repeated (Fig. 1 showing numerous elements 30) for each sunshade assembly (30) of the photovoltaic sunshade array (Fig. 1).
Re claim 24, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 19, wherein each sunshade assembly (30) is individually decoupled from (Fig. 2) the electrical raceway (45, 48).
Re claim 25, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 24, wherein a sunshade assembly (30) is decoupled from (Fig. 2) the electrical raceway (45, 48) by removal of a fastener (56, being a screw).
Re claim 27, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the frame system (34, 38) is supported by a pair of outriggers (34) that are coupled to the building exterior (20).
Re claim 28, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 27, wherein each outrigger (34) of the pair of outriggers (34) are coupled to the building exterior (20) by an anchor (38).
Re claim 29, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the anchor (38) receives a pin (92) that extends inwardly from (Fig. 10) each outrigger (34) of the pair of the outriggers (34).
Re claim 30, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the frame system (34, 38) comprises a plurality of frame members (50, 52) disposed around (Fig. 3) the photovoltaic panel (65).
Re claim 31, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 30, further comprising a pair of support brackets (68), the pair of support brackets (68) being coupled to a support cross member (54) and being coupled to respective outriggers (34) of the pair of outriggers (34).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 16, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braunstein et al (“Braunstein”) (US 6,421,966) in view of Newhart, III (“Newhart”) (US 6,883,282).
Re claim 4, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the electrical raceway comprises a cover that is rotatable between a closed position and an open position, wherein the cover opens downwardly relative to the electrical raceway.
However, Newhart discloses wherein the electrical raceway (14) comprises a cover (26) that is rotatable between a closed position (Fig. 6, solid line) and an open position (Fig. 6, dashed line), wherein the cover (26) opens downwardly relative to (Fig. 6) the electrical raceway (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sunshade array of Braunsein wherein the electrical raceway comprises a cover that is rotatable between a closed position and an open position, wherein the cover opens downwardly relative to the electrical raceway as disclosed by Newhart in order to allow access to the internal area of the raceway for maintenance or adjustment of wiring/cable without the need to disassemble.
Re claim 16, Braunstein discloses the electrical raceway of claim 14, but fails to disclose comprising a cover that is rotatable between a closed position and an open position, wherein the cover opens downwardly relative to the electrical raceway.
However, Newhart discloses comprising a cover (26) that is rotatable between a closed position (Fig. 6, solid line) and an open position (Fig. 6, dashed line), wherein the cover (26) opens downwardly relative to (Fig. 6) the electrical raceway (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical raceway of of Braunsein comprising a cover that is rotatable between a closed position and an open position, wherein the cover opens downwardly relative to the electrical raceway as disclosed by Newhart in order to allow access to the internal area of the raceway for maintenance or adjustment of wiring/cable without the need to disassemble.
Re claim 26, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the electrical raceway comprises a cover that is rotatable between a closed position and an open position, wherein the cover opens downwardly relative to the electrical raceway.
However, Newhart discloses wherein the electrical raceway (14) comprises a cover (26) that is rotatable between a closed position (Fig. 6, solid line) and an open position (Fig. 6, dashed line), wherein the cover (26) opens downwardly relative to (Fig. 6) the electrical raceway (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Braunsein wherein the electrical raceway comprises a cover that is rotatable between a closed position and an open position, wherein the cover opens downwardly relative to the electrical raceway as disclosed by Newhart in order to allow access to the internal area of the raceway for maintenance or adjustment of wiring/cable without the need to disassemble.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braunstein et al (“Braunstein”) (US 6,421,966) in view of Guo (US 2017/0353144).
Re claim 12, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the photovoltaic panel is mounted on a glass layer.
However, Guo discloses wherein the photovoltaic panel (Fig. 18 20) is mounted on a glass layer (50; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sunshade array of Braunsein wherein the photovoltaic panel is mounted on a glass layer as disclosed by Guo in order to allow for improved impact strength and rigidity ([0039]) and protection to the photovoltaic panel.
Re claim 13, Braunstein discloses the sunshade array of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the glass layer (50; [0039]) is clear glass, frosted glass, tinted glass, or glass having a variable opacity.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sunshade array of Braunstein wherein the glass layer (50; [0039]) is clear glass, frosted glass, tinted glass, or glass having a variable opacity in order to increase aesthetic appeal, or to design to a desired aesthetic better matching surrounding structures. Moreover, it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Re claim 32, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the photovoltaic panel comprises a glass layer.
However, Guo discloses wherein the photovoltaic panel (Fig. 18 20) comprises a glass layer (50; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Braunsein wherein the photovoltaic panel comprises on a glass layer as disclosed by Guo in order to allow for improved impact strength and rigidity ([0039]) and protection to the photovoltaic panel.
Re claim 33, Braunstein discloses the method of claim 32, but fails to disclose wherein the glass layer (50; [0039]) is clear glass, frosted glass, tinted glass, or glass having a variable opacity.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sunshade array of Braunstein wherein the glass layer (50; [0039]) is clear glass, frosted glass, tinted glass, or glass having a variable opacity in order to increase aesthetic appeal, or to design to a desired aesthetic better matching surrounding structures. Moreover, it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby partially withdrawn. However, as amended, the phrase “the method steps” also lacks antecedent basis in the claims, and thus stands rejected.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Argument A:
First, Applicant argues that Braunstein fails to disclose the claimed electrical raceway. In support, Applicant argues that Braunstein “unambiguously identifies” elements 45 and 48 as components of the blade assembly, not an electrical raceway. Applicant contends that neither element is described, characterized, labeled or designed to function as an electrical raceway. The fact that Braunstein doesn’t explicitly call these features an “electrical raceway” does not preclude them from being capable of functioning as an electrical raceway. A dog is still a dog even if you call it a cat. The term electrical raceway’s only structurally limiting feature, in a product claim, is “raceway.” “Electrical” is directed to the use of the “raceway.” The claim requires no positively recited wiring or cabling whatsoever. Merriam-Webster defines “raceway” as a channel for loosely holding wires in buildings. The structural feature of “raceway” is thus a channel. The channel must be capable of use as loosely holding wires in buildings, as the phrase, “for loosely holding wires in buildings” is directed to the intended use of the channel. Regardless of Braunstein calling 45 and 48 as components of the blade assembly, 45 and 48 very clearly form a channel. Fig. 3 explicitly shows 48 carrying wiring therein. 45 and 48 thus constitute an electrical raceway.
Next, Applicant argues that the fact that electrical cables 66 pass through Braunstein’s blade structure does not transform those structures into an electrical raceway. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The plain meaning of “electrical raceway” is a channel for passing electrical wiring. The cited structure of Braunstein cannot be reasonably said to not be a channel for passing electrical wiring, as it is quite evidently a channel and passes wiring. Applicant contends that claim 1 requires an enclosure or channel designed to house, protect, and provide access to electrical wiring. It is not apparent why a conduit passing electrical wiring, per Fig. 3 of Braunstein, does not constitute an enclosure or channel designed to house, protect, and provide access to electrical wiring. This is what is explicitly shown in Fig. 3.
Next, Applicant argues that “electrical raceway” is a term well understood in the art. Applicant states that it is a channel, conduit, or enclosure specifically designed to route, contain and protect electrical conductors. Again, it is not apparent why a conduit passing electrical wiring, per Fig. 3 of Braunstein, does not constitute channel, conduit, or enclosure specifically designed to route, contain and protect electrical conductors. Again, this is what is explicitly shown in Fig. 3. Applicant states that 48 is designed for mechanical support of the blade assembly and not for cable management. It is curious why it would not be considered designed for cable management, yet be explicitly disclosed as passing cables. An individual features of the prior art is capable of providing more than one function. Applicant also contends that the claimed raceway is a distinct component separate from the frame system. This might be the case, but it is not claimed. 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).
Response to Argument B:
Next, Applicant argues that Braunstein does not disclose an electrical raceway coupled to the plurality of sunshade assemblies. Applicant again argues that features 45 and 48 are not electrical raceways. This argument is addressed above and need not be addressed herein.
Applicant next argues that there is no single raceway structure that extends across the plurality of blades and to which each individual assembly attaches. In other words, it appears Applicant contends that each element 48 is separate and distinct from differing sunshade assemblies. There is no claim language which limits to a single raceway structure that extends across the plurality of blades and to which each individual assembly attaches. Applicant has chosen the inclusive transitional term, “comprising.” An individually claimed element is not limited to a single element. In combination, features 48 of Braunstein constitute the electrical raceway and serve to connect to the sunshade assemblies. Should Applicant want to argue the structural innovation of the claimed invention, “a unifying electrical raceway that allows multiple sunshade assemblies to be individually coupled and decoupled without disturbing the other assemblies,” Applicant should claim such.
Response to Argument C:
Next, Applicant argues that Braunstein does not disclose electrical leads being contained within the electrical raceway. Applicant contends that “contained within” denotes that the leads are housed within a dedicated enclosure designed for their containment. Applicant argues that the leads of Braunstein pass through openings which cannot be said to be contained in the electrical raceway. This is an overly narrow construction of the claim. Moreover, the leads 66 extend through the top wall, but into the raceway 48. This is again shown clearly in Fig. 3. The raceway 48 houses the wiring and the leads.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Argument A:
Applicant argues that the rejections of claims 4, 16, and 26 are fatally deficient because it presupposes a modification to an electrical raceway that Applicant argues does not exist. As noted above, Braunstein explicitly shows an electrical raceway regardless of the nomenclature chosen.
Response to Argument B:
Applicant argues that the rejections of claims 12-13 and 32-33 are insufficient for the reasons stated above. These arguments are addressed by the above.
Secondary Considerations A:
Next, Applicant argues that there is a long-felt, unresolved need supporting non-obviousness. It is not readily apparent which claim Applicant is arguing, but each independent claim is rejected under 35 USC 102, a novelty rejection. Secondary considerations of non-obviousness are not relevant to rejections under 35 USC 102, rendering these arguments moot.
Secondary Considerations B:
Next, Applicant argues that Braunstein’s design integrates wiring within the components of the blade assembly, and not a separate electrical raceway. As discussed above, there is no claim language which limits to a single raceway structure that extends across the plurality of blades and to which each individual assembly attaches. Applicant has chosen the inclusive transitional term, “comprising.” An individually claimed element is not limited to a single element. In combination, features 48 of Braunstein constitute the electrical raceway and serve to connect to the sunshade assemblies. A reference which explicitly all claim limitations of a claim cannot be said to teach away from the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights