Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 9, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed automated means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the automated means is detailed as referring to FIG. 1, frame 12 may be movable through automated means such as through the use of a motor which drives frame wheels 22 and/or horizontal wheels 34. Motor 38 which drives brush 24 may also be set up to drive frame wheels 22 and/or horizontal wheels 34, however a second motor, such as travel motor 76, shown in FIG. 13, may also be used, as seen in paragraph [0053] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 8-9 and 18-19 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.
Claim 8 is 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. It is unclear as to whether the horizontal set of wheels detailed in claim 8 is the same or different then the set of frame wheels detailed in parent claim 1.
Claim 9 is 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed automated means as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in paragraph [0053] of applicant’s originally filed specification the phrase “such as” used in this portion of applicant’s originally filed specification renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear as to whether other automated means than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 18 is 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. It is unclear to how an extending portion of the cover would allow for the cover to be shortened.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,0550,468 to Wang et al.
Referring to claim 1, Wang et al. discloses a solar panel washer comprising, a frame – at 101-109 and 1010-1013, having at least one elongate support – at 102,104, having a first end and a second end – see figures 2, 4, 7-9 and 11, the frame being supported by a set of frame wheels – at 401-408, the frame wheels – at 401-408, being positioned such that the set of frame wheels rotate on a top surface of a solar panel such that the frame is movable along the solar panel or a set of aligned solar panels – see figures 2, 4, 7-9, 11 and column 8 line 66 to column 9 line 61, at least one nozzle – at 3081, being positioned on the frame – see column 7 line 40 to column 8 line 15 and figures 6a-6b, the at least one nozzle – at 3081, being attached to a hose – at 308, such that a cleaning solution is sprayed onto the top surface of the solar panel – see figures 6a-6b and column 7 line 40 to column 8 line 15, and at least one brush – at 301-306, supported on the frame such that it contacts the top surface of the solar panel – see figures 2, 4, 7-9, 11 and column 6 lines 14-65.
Referring to claim 3, Wang et al. further discloses the at least one brush is a rotatable circular brush – at 301,302 – see figures 2, 4, 7-9, 11 and column 6 line 66 to column 7 line 39.
Referring to claim 4, Wang et al. further discloses the at least one brush – at 301,302 is rotated using a motor – at 307 – see column 6 line 66 to column 7 line 39.
Referring to claim 5, Wang et al. further discloses the height of the at least one brush – at 301-306, is adjustable – see for example column 5 lines 29-65 where the frame and attached brushes can be at different heights and orientations based on the size of the solar panel being cleaned and therefore the height of the brush with respect to the ground can be adjusted. It is noted that applicant has not positively recited in the claim any reference to what the brush height is adjusted with respect to.
Referring to claim 6, Wang et al. further discloses at least two nozzles are positioned on the frame – see multiple nozzles 3081 in figures 6a-6b and see column 7 line 40 to column 8 line 15, at least one nozzle – at 3081, being positioned such that cleaning solution is sprayed in a first direction – see figures 6a-6b, and at least one nozzle – at 3081, being positioned such that cleaning solution is sprayed in a second direction – see figures 6a-6b showing the spray pattern from the nozzles spraying the liquid in different directions.
Referring to claim 7, Wang et al. further discloses the frame further comprises a first wheel support – at junction of 101,102 and connection of the junction to wheel – at 401 – see figures 7-9 and column 9 lines 1-5, being attached to the first end of the elongate support – at 102, the first wheel support being perpendicular to the elongate support – see proximate 101 in figures 7-9, and a second wheel support – at junction of 102,103 and connection of the junction to the wheel – at 404 – see figures 7-9 and column 9 lines 12-20, being attached to the second end of the elongate support – at 102 – see figures 7-9, the second wheel support being perpendicular to the elongate support – see proximate 103 in figures 7-9, the set of frame wheels being positioned on the first wheel support and the second wheel support – see at 401,402 in figures 7-9.
Referring to claim 8, Wang et al. further discloses a horizontal set of wheels – at 406,602, are positioned on the first wheel support and the second wheel support – see at 101-103 in figures 7-9, such that the horizontal set of wheels – at 406,602, rotate on a first side and a second side of the solar panel – see figures 7-10 and column 9 line 2 to column 10 line 6, the horizontal set of wheels – at 406,602, maintaining alignment of the frame on the solar panel – see figures 7-10 and column 9 line 2 to column 10 line 6.
Referring to claim 9, Wang et al. further discloses the frame is movable along the solar panels by automated means – at 405,406,4005,4006 – see figures 7-10 and column 9 lines 50-61. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed automated means items 405,406 and 4005,4006 of Wang et al. are wheels and motors consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 10, Wang et al. further discloses the length of the frame is adjustable – see column 5 lines 29-65.
Referring to claim 19, Wang et al. further discloses a travel motor – at 4001,4002, the travel motor being in communication with the set of frame wheels – at 401-408 – see figures 7-9 and column 8 line 66 to column 9 line 50, to drive the set of frame wheels in a first direction or a second direction – see figures 7-9 and column 8 line 66 to column 9 line 50, the second direction being opposite to the first direction – second direction not required by the claim given the “or” clause.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0281212 to Roeloffs.
Referring to claim 2, Wang et al. further discloses the frame has a central elongate support – at 102 or 104, and a pair of side elongate supports – at 101 and 103, the pair of elongate supports being positioned on either side of the brush – see figures 2, 4, 7-9 and 11, but does not disclose the supports being positioned such that the central elongate support and the pair of side elongate supports create a triangular shape. Roeloffs does disclose the frame – at 13,17,19, has a central elongate rail – see center of 13,17,19, and a pair of side supports connected to the central rail that create a triangular shape – see multiple triangular shapes formed in 13 as seen in figures 1-3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. and add the supports forming a triangular shape as disclosed by Roeloffs, so as to yield the predictable result of reinforcing the frame to make the device stronger and more durable for repeated use.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0323413 to Li et al.
Referring to claim 11, Wang et al. does not disclose the set of frame wheels having a spring assembly such that the set of frame wheels accommodate bumps or gaps between adjacent solar panels to be cleaned in the set of aligned solar panels. Li et al. does disclose a solar panel cleaner – see paragraph [0070], and the set of frame wheels – at 71, having a spring assembly – see paragraph [0080], such that the set of frame wheels – at 71, accommodate bumps or gaps between adjacent solar panels to be cleaned in the set of aligned solar panels – see figures 2-7 and paragraph [0080]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. and add the frame wheels having a spring assembly as disclosed by Li et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the brush remains in contact with the surface to be cleaned as desired.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN Patent No. 208610746 to He et al.
Referring to claim 12, Wang et al. further discloses the elongate support is movable between an operation mode and a transport and storage mode – see figures 2, 4, 7-9 and 11 and column 5 lines 29-65, a bridge connector – at 1011-1013, being provided on the elongate support – at 102,104, at a point of connection to hold the elongate support – at 102,104, in the operation mode – see figures 2, 4, 7-9 and 11. Wang et al. does not disclose the elongate support is foldable between and operation mode and a transport and storage mode and the bridge connector is at a point of folding. He et al. does disclose a cleaning device having an elongate support – at 3-7, and a bridge connector – for example at 7, at a point of folding – see the drawing figure and English abstract. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. and add the folding of the frame as disclosed by He et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device easier to manipulate and assemble as desired.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of IN Patent No. 201502662 to Atre et al.
Referring to claim 13, Wang et al. does not disclose the at least one nozzle is flat fan or tapered flat fan nozzle. Atre et al. does disclose the at least one nozzle is flat fan or tapered flat fan nozzle – see flat fan nozzle in the English abstract. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. and add the nozzle being a flat fan nozzle as disclosed by Atre et al., so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring proper cleaning liquid contact with the surface to be cleaned as desired.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Referring to claim 14, Wang et al. does not disclose the set of frame wheels have insulated bushings. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. and add the wheels having insulated bushings, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the wheels and components of the device are better protect the wheels and the device from water/climate and contaminants as desired.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0349706 to Grossman et al.
Referring to claim 15, Wang et al. does not disclose a first squeegee extends from the first wheel support to the second wheel support such that the first squeegee is positioned parallel to the elongate support. Grossman et al. does disclose a first squeegee – at 411 or 412, extends from the first support – at one end of 450, to the second support – at the other end of 450, see figure 4, such that the first squeegee – at 411,412, is positioned parallel to the elongate support – at 450 – see figure 4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. and add the first squeegee, so as to yield the predictable result of effecting better cleaning of the surface being cleaned as desired.
Referring to claim 16, Wang et al. as modified by Grossman et al. further discloses a second squeegee – other of items 411,412 of Grossman et al., extends from the wheel support to the second support – see figure 4 of Grossman et al., such that second squeegee – other of 411,412, is positioned parallel to the elongate support – at 250, and on a side of the elongate support opposite the first squeegee – at the other of 411,412 – see figure 4 of Grossman et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. and add the first squeegee, so as to yield the predictable result of effecting better cleaning of the surface being cleaned as desired.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,487,962 to Falk.
Referring to claim 17, Wang et al. does not disclose a cover extends from the first wheel support to the second wheel support such that the cover covers the at least one elongate support, the at least one nozzle, the hose, and the at least one brush. Falk does disclose a cover – at 10, extends from the first wheel support – at 7, to the second wheel support – at 7, such that the cover – at 10, covers the elongate support – at 40, the at least one nozzle – openings at the end of hose – at 26, the hose – at 26, and the at least one brush – at 11 – see figures 1-3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. and add the cover of Falk, so as to yield the predictable result of protecting the components of the device from debris and contaminants as desired.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as modified by Falk as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0152877 to Tadayon.
Referring to claim 18, Wang et al. as modified by Falk does not disclose the cover has an extending portion that allows the length of the cover to be lengthened and shortened. Tadayon does disclose the cover has an extending portion that allows the length of the cover to be lengthened and shortened – see foldable to shorten and lengthen in paragraph [0163]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. as modified by Falk and add the cover being extended to shorten and lengthen as disclosed by Tadayon, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the cover to be placed into multiple positions as desired depending on the use and storage of the device as desired.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0115982 to Hammack.
Referring to claim 20, Wang et al. further does not disclose at least one end stop sensor, the at least one end stop sensor providing a signal to stop the set of frame wheels when an edge of the solar panel or the set of aligned solar panels is sensed. Hammack does disclose at least one end stop sensor, the at least one end stop sensor providing a signal to stop the set of frame wheels when an edge of the solar panel or the set of aligned solar panels is sensed – see paragraph [0033]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Wang et al. and add the stop sensor of Hammack, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the cleaning device remains in contact with the surface to be cleaned during operation so as to facilitate better cleaning of the surface.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to solar panel cleaning devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 9,130,502 to Aly et al. – shows solar panel cleaning device
U.S. Pat. No. 10,571,274 to Bailey et al. – shows solar panel cleaning device
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights