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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “other components are equipped with over-extension locks” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 8. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant recites, “a means charging of an electric vehicle”. This phrase is grammatically incorrect, but would be correct if amended to recite, “A means for charging of an electric vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 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 2, Applicant recites, “the solar panels”. Its unclear if these are referencing the plurality of solar panels or different solar panels. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 3, Applicant recites, “to extend in laterally”. Its unclear if this extension direction is inward
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites, “the system”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “a vehicle”. Its unclear if this is the same vehicle recited in claim 1 or if a different vehicle is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant recites, “a vehicle”. Its unclear if this is the same vehicle recited in claim 1 or if a different vehicle is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “telescoping arms”. Its unclear if these are referencing the plurality of telescoping arms or a different group of telescoping arms. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “said solar panels”. Its unclear if these are referencing the plurality of solar panels or a different group of solar panels. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “other components”. Its unclear what corresponds to the “other” components. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “the solar panels”. Its unclear if these are referencing the plurality of solar panels or different solar panels. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “the solar panels”. Its unclear if these are referencing the plurality of solar panels or different solar panels. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “the solar panels are configured to be thin, light”. Its unclear what exactly corresponds to a “thin” and “light” solar panel. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “a durable, transparent coating”. Its unclear what exactly corresponds to a “durable” transparent coating. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “the solar panels”. Its unclear if these are referencing the plurality of solar panels or different solar panels. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant recites, “the control system”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant recites, “can stack more easily”. Its unclear how this phrase further limits the plurality of solar panels. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant recites, “an electric vehicle”. Its unclear if this corresponds to the vehicle already recited or if a different “electric” vehicle is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant recites, “depending on the needs of the electric vehicle”. Its unclear how this phrase further limits the electrical connection of the plurality of solar panels. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 16, Applicant recites, “the external charging port”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “the solar panels”. Its unclear if these are referencing the plurality of solar panels or different solar panels. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “the actuator”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites, “ensure safe expansion and contraction of the solar panels”. Its unclear how this phrase further limits the solar panel array. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 20, Applicant recites the number “23”, its unclear how this phrase further limits the adjustable roof connectors. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Kurlagunda et al. discloses a solar panel array (Figs. 10-15 & Abstract) comprising:
a frame (Fig. 11, #46 & Paragraph 0048);
a plurality of telescoping arms attached to said frame (Fig. 10, #34-#35 – Paragraph 0048);
a plurality of solar panels attached to said telescoping arms (Fig. 10, #32-#33 – Paragraph 0048);
wherein said plurality of telescoping arms are used for the expansion (Figs. 11-12) and contraction (Fig. 13) of said plurality of solar panels to create an expandable and contractable solar panel array (Paragraph 0017), that is attached on the rooftop of a vehicle (Figs. 10-15).
In view of Claim 3, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. teaches that the telescoping arms are configured to extend in a lateral direction enabling he expansion of the solar panel array to expand to any side of the vehicle (Fig. 12 & Paragraph 0049).
In view of Claim 4, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. teaches that the telescoping arms are configured to extend in a longitudinal direction enabling the expansion of the solar panel array to expand to any front and back of the vehicle (Fig. 12 & Paragraph 0049).
In view of Claim 6, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. discloses that the frame is configured to attach to a roof rack of the vehicle (Fig. 1 & Paragraph 0036).
In view of Claim 7, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. teaches the frame is configured to removably attach directly to the roof of a vehicle (Fig. 1 & Paragraph 0036).
In view of Claim 12, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. teaches that the control system includes a plurality of mechanical and electrical linear actuators configured to expand and contract said plurality of solar panels (Paragraph 0048 – “driven by an electrical motor…and linear actuator” & Paragraph 0051-0052, there can be multiple enclosures, each with a mechanical and linear actuator, thus a “plurality” are present), automatically based on user input (Paragraph 0049) or automatically (Paragraph 0061-0062).
In view of Claim 14, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. teaches a control system electrically connected to said solar panel array, wherein said control system further comprises a means charging of the electric vehicle (Paragraph 0015).
In view of Claim 16, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Kurlagunda et al. teaches that the control system further comprises a means for directly connecting to the charging system of the vehicle directly without the need for using the external charging port (Paragraph 0015 – system can be embedded within the chassis of an electric vehicle itself).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1) in view of Van Straten (US 2017/0222475 A1).
In view of Claim 2, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. does not explicitly teach C-channels are integrated into the frame for guiding the solar panels during expansion and contraction.
Van Straten discloses C-channels (Fig. 15, #85) that are integrated into a frame for guiding solar panels during expansion and contraction that allow solar panel frames to be disposed and aligned within a track that allows for solar panel frame to slide in planes that are parallel to the frame and to one another (Paragraph 0055). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the C-channels of frame into Kurlagunda et al. frame such that the solar panels are guided during expansion and contraction for the advantage of ensuring the solar panel are parallel to the frame and ensuring the solar panels are aligned.
Claims 5 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1) in view of Gao (CN 208956074 U). Gao is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 5, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. does not disclose that the solar panel array includes safety locks to prevent accidental expansion of the solar panels while the vehicle is in motion.
Gao discloses a solar panel array includes safety locks to prevent an array from accidentally protruding from a body when not in use (Page 4, 7th Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the solar panel array of Kurlagunda et al. to include safety locks to advantageously prevent the solar panel array from protruding from the frame body when not in use that would incidentally prevent accidental expansion of the solar panels while the vehicle is in motion.
In view of Claim 8, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. does not disclose that the telescoping arms, solar panels and other components are equipped with over extension locks to prevent over extension of the solar panel array.
Gao discloses slidable grooves, solar panels, and other components are equipped with over-extension locks to prevent over extension of a solar panel array for the advantages of a solar panel plate from being pulled out of a body and stopping the excessive pulling of the solar panel plate while also being used as a stopper structure (Page 3, 6th Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the telescoping arms, solar panels and other components of Kurlagunda et al. be equipped with over extension locks to prevent over extension of the solar panel array for the advantages of a solar panel plate from being pulled out of a body and stopping the excessive pulling of the solar panel plate while also being used as a stopper structure
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1) in view of Roberts et al. (US 2020/0228057 A1).
In view of Claim 9, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. does not disclose that the solar panels are bifacial, capable of generating electricity from sunlight on both sides of the panels.
Roberts et al. teaches that a solar panel array’s system efficiency can be enhanced using bi-facial modules that gather additional sunlight from ground reflectivity creating greater power density (Paragraph 0022). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the solar panels of Kurlagunda et al. be bifacial capable of generating electricity from sunlight on both sides of the panels for the advantage of having enhanced system efficiency by gathering additional sunlight.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1) in view of Garvison et al. (US 6,111,189 A).
In view of Claim 10, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. discloses that the panels are relatively thin in comparison to the frame (Fig. 11, #37-#44 are thinner than the frame #39), and that they are considered “light” (Paragraph 0037), but does not disclose that they are enclosed in a durable transparent coating for protection against environmental conditions.
Garvison et al. discloses that solar panels are enclosed in a durable transparent coating (Column 5, Lines 45-47 - EVA) for protection against environmental conditions in the sense that the durable transparent coating is provided to seal the substrate and solar cells in a module and helps protect the module from the environment (Column 3, Lines 18-23 & Column 12, Lines 42-45). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the plurality of solar panels be enclosed in a durable transparent coating of EVA in order to advantageously seal the substrate and solar cells
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1) in view of Byrnes et al. (US 2018/0337632 A1).
In view of Claim 11, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. does not disclose a cable extension mechanism for managing the extension and retraction of electrical cables as the solar panels expand and contract.
Byrnes et al. teaches a cable mechanism for managing the extension and retraction of electrical cables as the solar panels expand and contract (Figs. 7-9, #31/#32 & Paragraph 0070). Byrnes et al. discloses that the system can quickly deploy and quickly retract (Paragraph 0011). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cable extension mechanism for managing the extension and retraction of electrical cables as the solar panels expand and contract as disclosed by Byrnes et al. into Kurlagunda et al. solar panel array for the advantage of being to quickly deploy and quickly retract the wiring system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1) in view of Qin et al. (US 2012/0222726 A1).
In view of Claim 11, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. does not disclose a plurality of junction boxes associated with said plurality of solar panels, wherein said junction boxes are positioned on the edge within said frame such that said plurality of solar panels can stack more easily.
Qin et al. teaches junction boxes associated with a solar panel such that its positioned on the edge within a frame (Fig. 8, #50-1, #64 within the edge of the solar panel frame – Paragraph 0092-0093). Qin et al. discloses that incorporating a junction box with a solar panel in this configuration makes the back side of a solar cell module less cluttered and more aesthetically pleasing (Paragraph 0018). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of junction boxes associated with the plurality of solar panels of Kurlagunda, such that said junction boxes are positioned on the edge within said frame such that said plurality of solar panels for the advantages of having a solar cell module less cluttered and more aesthetically pleasing.
In regards to the limitation that the plurality of solar panels can stack more easily, it is the Examiner’s position that a back side of a plurality of solar cells in modified Kurlagunda et al. would have no junction box present on the back surface and thus would be able to or not impede with the “stacking” of the solar panels when extending or deploying from the solar panel array.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1) in view of Augenbraun et al. (US 2009/0293932 A1)
In view of Claim 15, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Kurlagunda et al. does not disclose that the plurality of solar panels can be connected in series or in parallel depending on the needs of the electric vehicle.
Augenbraun et al. discloses solar panels can be connected in series (which is used if the direct DC output of the panels are desired) or in parallel (which is used if the panel power is internally converted to AC or to some form of normalized DC) (Paragraph 0232). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the plurality of solar panels connected in series or in parallel depending on if the direct DC output of the panels are desired or if AC or some other form of normalized DC is desired. Its respectfully pointed out, that either of these decisions could be made “on the needs of the vehicle”.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1) in view of Freeman (US 2014/0297072 A1).
In view of Claim 17, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Kurlagunda et al. does not disclose the control system further comprises a central processing unit with on-board memory and storage configured to communicate with said vehicle and external devices via wired or wireless communication channels.
Freeman teaches a control system comprises a computer (computers comprise CPUs, memory (RAM) and storage (Hard drives) (Paragraph 0006 – onboard computer), that’s configured to communicate with a vehicle and external devices via wireless communication channels (Paragraph 0059 – uses GPS). Freeman discloses that this system can maximize solar energy output when the vehicle is left unattended for a few hours (Paragraph 0010-0011) and additionally can determine if it makes sense to retract the array to avoid any dangers (Paragraph 0013). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include a computer of Freeman that comprises a central processing unit with on-board memory and storage configured to communicate with said vehicle and external devices via wired or wireless communication channels in Kurlagunda et al. system for the advantage of maximizing solar energy output when the vehicle is left unattended and determine if the array needs to be retract to avoid any immediate dangers to the array.
In view of Claim 18, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Kurlagunda et al. does not disclose the control system is configured to interact with a software layer, enabling programmatic control and remote triggering of the expansion and contraction of the solar panels through an actuator.
Freeman discloses a control system that is configured to interact with a software layer enabling programmatic control (Paragraph 0020 - computer based sub-systems pre-programmed w/ knowledge) and remote triggering of the expansion (Paragraph 0011) and contract (Paragraph 0013) of solar panels through an actuator (Paragraph 0034). Freeman discloses that this system can maximize solar energy output when the vehicle is left unattended for a few hours (Paragraph 0010-0011) and additionally can determine if it makes sense to retract the array to avoid any dangers (Paragraph 0013). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include a computer of Freeman that comprises control system is configured to interact with a software layer, enabling programmatic control and remote triggering of the expansion and contraction of the solar panels through an actuator in Kurlagunda et al. system for the advantage of maximizing solar energy output when the vehicle is left unattended and determine if the array needs to be retract to avoid any immediate dangers to the array.
In view of Claim 19, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kurlagunda et al. teaches a plurality of sensors configured to monitor the surroundings and ensure safe expansion and contract of the solar panels (Paragraph 0057-0061) but does not disclose cameras that are configured to monitor the surroundings and ensure safe expansion and contraction of the solar panels.
Freeman discloses a camera can be used to detect objects taller than the array (Paragraph 0050) and objects that cause shade on the array (Paragraph 0067). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include the camera of Freeman as one of Kurlagunda et al. sensor such that its configured to monitor the surroundings and ensure safe expansion and contraction of the solar panels for the advantage of detecting objects taller than the array and objects that cause shade on the array.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290 A1) in view of Lasse (FI 13169 Y1). Lasse is mapped to the English machine translation.
In view of Claim 20, Kurlagunda et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Kurlagunda et al. does not disclose a plurality of adjustable roof connectors mechanically connected to said frame and said vehicle that the adjustable roof connectors are configured to adjust the angle said solar panel array towards the sun.
Lasse discloses adjustable roof connectors mechanically connected to the bottom of a solar panel frame (Fig. 2, #113a is connected to bottom of frames 111a-c), and said vehicle (Fig. 2, #113a is connected to the vehicle mechanically via 112b – Page 5, 8th-9th Paragraph). Lasse disclose this enables the solar panel array to be automatically or manually guided to the optimal or at least a better angle towards the sun (Page 3, 5th Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of adjustable roof connectors mechanically connected to said frame and said vehicle that the adjustable roof connectors are configured to adjust the angle said solar panel array towards the sun as disclosed by Lasse in Kurlagunda et al. solar panel array for the advantage of having the solar panel array optimal arranged towards the sun or at least a better angle towards the sun.
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