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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the first array surface”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if Applicant is referencing the first platform surface or if a different distinct array surface is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the array platform”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 3, Applicant recites, “the corresponding corner”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “stadium shape”. Its unclear what corresponds to a stadium shape. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “an arbitrary array”. Its unclear how the word “arbitrary” further limits this array. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “each of the plurality of corner casting devices of an arbitrary array device”. The phrase “each of the plurality of corner castings” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “the plurality of array frames”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant recites, “the first array surface”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if Applicant is referencing the first platform surface or if a different distinct array surface is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant recites, “the array platform”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant recites, “stadium shape”. Its unclear what corresponds to a stadium shape. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “an arbitrary array”. Its unclear how the word “arbitrary” further limits this array. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyne (WO 2018/209378 A1) in view of Meppelink et al. (US 2015/0013750 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Pyne discloses a portable solar-energy capturing system (Figs. 1, 6, & 10) comprising:
at least one array device (Figs. 1, 6, & 10, #110);
the at least one array device comprising an array frame (Figs. 1, 6, #112 – Paragraph 87), at least one solar panel (Figs. 1, 6, 10, #32 – Paragraph 78); a plurality of corner casting devices (Figs, 1, 6, 10, #118/122 – Paragraph 87); and a plurality of slots (Fig. 11, the openings on bottom side walls);
the array frame comprising a plurality of side walls (Figs. 1, 6, 10, #114
the plurality of slots laterally traversing through the plurality of side walls (Fig. 11, the openings traverse laterally through the plurality of side walls);
the at least one solar panel being mounted on a first array surface (Figs. 1, 6, 10, #32 is mounted on top surfaces of the array);
the plurality of side walls being perimetrically mounted about the array platform (Figs. 1, 6, 10, #114),
each of the plurality of corner casting devices being mounted into a corresponding corner between two adjacent side walls from the plurality of side walls (Figs. 1, 6, 10, #118/122 – Paragraph 87).
Pyne does not disclose the array comprises a frame platform that comprises a first platform surface and a second platform surface that are positioned opposite to each other about the array platform such that the at least one solar panel being mounted onto a first platform surface and the plurality of side walls being oriented away from the first platform surface.
Meppelink et al. teaches an array comprises a frame platform (Fig. 25, #250) that comprises a first platform and a second platform surface that are positioned opposite to each other about an array platform (Fig. 25, top and bottom surfaces of 250), such that at least one solar panel is mounted onto a first platform surface (Fig. 15, solar panels are mounted to this surface) such that a plurality of side walls are oriented away from the first platform surface (Fig. 25, sidewalls 206 facing perpendicular to frame platform 250). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the array of Pyne comprise a frame platform that comprises a first platform surface and a second platform surface that are positioned opposite to each other about the array platform such that the at least one solar panel being mounted onto a first platform surface and the plurality of side walls being oriented away from the first platform surface for the advantage of having a screen that prevents weather from entering the frame.
In view of Claim 2, Pyne and Meppelink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Pyne teaches that the array frame is a rectangular cuboid (Figs. 1, 6, #112).
In view of Claim 3, Pyne and Meppelink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Pyne teaches a pair of corner casting devices from the plurality of corner casting devices mounted into a corresponding corner (Fig. 6, #118 & Paragraph 94).
In view of Claim 7, Pyne and Meppelink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Pyne discloses at least one array device further comprises a first lengthwise track and a second lengthwise track (Figs. 4 & 10, #53); the first lengthwise track and the second lengthwise track being positioned parallel to each other and positioned opposite to each other across the frame platform (Figs. 4 & 10, #53 is present on opposite sides of the frame platform and parallel to one another), and the at least one solar panel being slidably engaged along the first and second lengthwise track (Figs. 4 & 10, #34 – Paragraph 76).
Meppelink et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to the array device of Pyne mounted above the first platform surface.
Claims 4-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyne (WO 2018/209378 A1) in view of Meppelink et al. (US 2015/0013750 A1) in view of Prentice et al. (US 2023/0081734 A1).
In view of Claim 4, Pyne and Meppelink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Pyne does not disclose each of the plurality of corner casting devices comprises a cuboid body and a plurality of holes; and the plurality of holes traversing through the cuboid body.
Prentice et al. discloses each of a plurality of corner casting devices comprising a cuboid body and a plurality of holes, wherein the plurality of holes traverse through the cuboid body (Figs. 3A-C & 0074-0076). Prentice et al. discloses that this configuration allows a second system to be stacked on top a of a first system, and that it allows for easy transport on semi-truck beds, ships, in storage or other applications while allowing a system to attach to standard connections on standard container transport trailers (Paragraph 0058). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have each of the plurality of corner casting devices comprises a cuboid body and a plurality of holes; and the plurality of holes traversing through the cuboid body as disclosed by Prentice in modified Pyne for the advantages of at least one of allowing a second system to be stacked on top a of a first system, and that it allows for easy transport on semi-truck beds, ships, in storage or other applications while allowing a system to attach to standard connections on standard container transport trailers.
In view of Claim 5, Pyne, Meppelink et al., and Prentice et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Prentice et al. discloses the cuboid body comprising a first base surface, a second base surface, and a plurality of lateral surfaces (See Annotated Prentice et al. Fig. 3A, below); the plurality of holes comprising a vertical hole and at least one horizontal hole (See Annotated Prentice et al. Fig. 3A, below); the first base surface being positioned opposite to the second base surface about the cuboid body and the vertical hole traversing normal through the first base surface and the second cuboid surface (See Annotated Prentice et al. Fig. 3A); and the at least one horizontal hole traversing normal through two opposing lateral surfaces from the plurality of lateral surfaces (See Annotated Prentice et al. Fig. 3A, below).
Annotated Prentice et al. Fig. 3A
PNG
media_image1.png
735
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 6, Pyne, Meppelink et al., and Prentice et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Prentice et al. teaches each of the plurality of holes has an oval shape which can be a stadium shape (See Annotated Prentice et al. Fig. 3A, above); and an area of the vertical hole being greater than an area of the at least one horizontal hole (See Annotated Prentice et al. Fig. 3A, above).
In view of Claim 9, Pyne, and Meppelink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Pyne does not disclose a plurality of twist locks; the at least one array devices being a plurality of array devices; and each of the plurality of corner casting devices of an arbitrary array device being attached on to a corresponding corner casting device from the plurality of corner casting devices of an adjacent array device by a single twist lock from the plurality of twist locks, wherein the arbitrary array device and the adjacent array device are any adjacent pair of array device from the plurality of array devices.
Prentice et al. teaches a plurality of twist locks; the at least one array devices being a plurality of array devices; and each of the plurality of corner casting devices of an arbitrary array device being attached on to a corresponding corner casting device from the plurality of corner casting devices of an adjacent array device by a single twist lock from the plurality of twist locks, wherein the arbitrary array device and the adjacent array device are any adjacent pair of array device from the plurality of array devices (Figs. 3A-C & Paragraph 0074-0076).
In view of Claim 10, Pyne, Meppelink et al., and Prentice et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Prentice et al. teaches that the plurality of array frames can be arranged in a stacked configuration (Paragraph 0077).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pyne (WO 2018/209378 A1) in view of Meppelink et al. (US 2015/0013750 A1) in view of Prentice et al. (US 2023/0081734 A1) in view of Siebert et al. (US 2021/0108562 A1).
In view of Claim 11, Pyne, Meppelink et al., and Prentice et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Modified Pyne does not disclose that the plurality of array frames can be arranged in a side-by-side configuration.
Siebert et al. teaches array frames that utilize corner castings can be arranged in side-by-side configurations (Fig. 3B, #230 & #240 – Paragraph 0050). Siebert et al. teaches that this enables the assembly of a modular generator system without requiring complicated assembly, and/or skilled tradespeople (Paragraph 0042). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in order to have the plurality of array frames can be arranged in a side-by-side configuration for the advantage of having the array frames be organized into a modular generator system without requiring complicated assembly, and/or skilled tradespeople.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-20 are would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726