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 6, and 10-13 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 6, Applicant recites, “a fist end”. Its unclear what corresponds to a “fist” end. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “secured by columns”. Its unclear if these columns are the same as the plurality of columns that have been recited in preceding independent claim 1, or if different distinct columns are being introduced to the structural grid. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “a long span”. Its unclear what corresponds to a “long” span. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “a short span”. Its unclear what corresponds to a “short” span. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant recites, “the load”, “a first load”, and “a second load”. Its unclear if the first and second load are different than the load introduced in the preceding independent claim or if there are 3 loads present.
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant recites, “the load”, “a first load”, and “a second load”. Its unclear if the first and second load are different than the load introduced in the preceding independent claim or if there are 3 loads present.
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 1-4, and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conger (US 2010/0089433 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Conger discloses a structural grid (Fig. 41) comprising:
a plurality of cables (Fig. 41, #308 – Paragraph 0204-0205);
a plurality of beams connected to the cables (Fig. 41, #399 & Fig. 40, #470, #472 & #474);
a plurality of columns connected to the beams and cables (Fig. 41, #398 & #400 – Paragraph 0203) to suspend a load above the ground (Fig. 43, #430 & Paragraph 0208);
wherein the load is mounted over the cables and beams (Fig. 3, #430 & Paragraph 0208);
a plurality of connectors to attach the load to the cables and beams (Fig. 50, #476 & Paragraph 0216);
wherein the columns have one end secured within the ground on to the ground (Fig. 41, #398 – the column has an anchor at the end secured within the ground).
In view of Claim 2, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger teaches that the beams further include a plurality of braces, and wherein a combination of beams and braces form a truss (Fig. 50, #474 & #470 form a truss);
In view of Claim 3, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger teaches that the structural grid includes a plurality of trusses (Fig. 50 is repeated over the array to mount the solar panels to the structural grid).
In view of Claim 4, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger teaches that the structural grid is mounted over a body of water in which a first side of the structural grid is placed on one bank of the body of water, and a second side of the structural grid is placed on an opposite bank of the body of water (Fig. 47).
In view of Claim 7, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger discloses that the structural grid has a linear shape with lateral sides that are substantially parallel to one another (Fig. 41, long side of the array) and longitudinal sides that are substantially parallel to one another (Fig. 41, short side of the array) and these “sides” are orthogonal to one another.
In view of Claim 8, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger teaches that the structural grid can have a non-linear shape (Fig. 74).
In view of Claim 9, Conger discloses a structural grid (Fig. 41) comprising:
a plurality of cables (Fig. 41, #308 – Paragraph 0204-0205);
a plurality of beams connected to the cables (Fig. 41, #399 & Fig. 40, #470, #472 & #474);
a plurality of columns connected to the beams and cables (Fig. 41, #398 & #400 – Paragraph 0203) to suspend a load above the ground (Fig. 43, #430 & Paragraph 0208);
wherein the load is mounted over the cables and beams (Fig. 3, #430 & Paragraph 0208);
a plurality of connectors to attach the load to the cables and beams (Fig. 50, #476 & Paragraph 0216);
wherein the columns have one end secured within the ground on to the ground (Fig. 41, #398 – the column has an anchor at the end secured within the ground);
wherein a selected group of beams form a truss (Fig. 50, #474 & #470 form a truss), and
said structural grid includes a plurality of trusses spaced along selected portions of the structural grid (Fig. 50 is repeated over the array to mount the solar panels to the structural grid – Paragraph 0216).
In view of Claim 10, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Conger teaches the structural grid forms a long span (Fig. 41).
In view of Claim 11, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1 Conger discloses the structural grid can form a short span (Fig. 15).
In view of Claim 12, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger teaches that a first load is secured to an upper surface of the structural grid (Fig. 51, the solar panels are disposed on the upper surfaces of the structural grid); and a second load is secured to a lower surface of the structural grid (Fig. 52, #476). In regards to the term “load” any structural item with a mass that exerts downwards on the structural grid is considered a “load”.
In view of Claim 13, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Conger teaches that a first load is secured to an upper surface of the structural grid (Fig. 51, the solar panels are disposed on the upper surfaces of the structural grid); and a second load is secured to a lower surface of the structural grid (Fig. 52, #476). In regards to the term “load” any structural item with a mass that exerts downwards on the structural grid is considered a “load”.
In view of Claim 14, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger teaches that the load can act as a shade cover (Paragraph 0007 & 0018).
In view of Claim 15, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger teaches that the load is solar panels (Paragraph 0007 & 0018).
In view of Claim 16, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Conger teaches that the load can act as a shade cover (Paragraph 0007 & 0018).
In view of Claim 17, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Conger teaches that the load is solar panels (Paragraph 0007 & 0018).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger (US 2010/0089433 A1) in view of Tadayon (US 2012/0152877 A1).
In view of Claim 5, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger does not disclose a cleaning/service trolley assembly secured to the beams and cables wherein the trolley assembly is moveable along a selected length of the structural grid.
Tadayon discloses a cleaning/service trolley that can be secured to beams or cables and is moveable along an array (Figs. 9-10 & Paragraph 0114-0115). Tadayon teaches that this configuration increases efficiency of solar energy and solar farms (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a cleaning/service trolley assembly secured to the beams and cables wherein the trolley assembly is moveable along a selected length of the structural grid for the advantage of increasing the efficiency of the structural grid.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger (US 2010/0089433 A1) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 2011/0290305 A1).
In view of Claim 6, Conger is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Conger does not disclose the structural grid is a cantilever design comprising a first end of the structural grid secured by columns to the ground and a second opposite end of the structural grid extending away from the first end and said second end not being connected to any structure.
Hoffman et al. discloses a structural grid is a cantilever design comprising a first end of the structural grid secured by columns to the ground and a second opposite end of the structural grid extending away from the first end and said second end not being connected to any structure (Fig. 1). Hoffman et al. teaches that this design is useful to provide shade to an area such as a carport (Paragraph 0001). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Conger’s structural grid be a cantilever design comprising a first end of the structural grid secured by columns to the ground and a second opposite end of the structural grid extending away from the first end and said second end not being connected to any structure for the advantage of providing shade for a carport.
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