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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding Claim 1, the word “A” is missing before the phrase, “Deformable vertical photovoltaic system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 2, the word “The” is missing before the word, “System”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 3, the word “the” is missing before the word, “System”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 4, the word “the” is missing before the word, “System”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 5, the word “the” is missing before the word, “System”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 6, the word “the” is missing before the word, “System”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 7, the word “the” is missing before the word, “System”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 8, the word “the” is missing before the phrase, “Photovoltaic system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 9, the word “the” is missing before the phrase, “Photovoltaic system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 10, the word “A” is missing before the phrase, “Method (500) for installing”. 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 1-10 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, “(100, 200, 300, 400)”. There’s no recitation of 200, 300, or 400 in the drawings, and while reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The numerical values do not correspond to anything within the detailed description or drawings, lending ambiguity as to what Applicant is distinctly limiting. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a post (110) having an axis (A)”, and “a lower portion of a module to a post”. Its unclear if the second recitation of the post corresponds to the first recitation or if a new post is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a post (110) having an axis (A)”, and “a upper portion of a module to a post”. Its unclear if the second recitation of the post corresponds to the first recitation or if a new post is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “an axis (B,C)”. Its unclear if there are to axes present or a singular axis present. Appropriate action is required. The Examiner respectfully points out that generally the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “an axis (B,C)”. Its unclear if there are to axes present or a singular axis present. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “the module”. This term lacks antecedent basis as its unclear if its referencing the photovoltaic module already recited or if a different module is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claims 2-7, Applicant recites in the preamble of these claims “System (100, 200, 300, 400)”. There’s no recitation of 200, 300, or 400 in the drawings, and while reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The numerical values do not correspond to anything within the detailed description or drawings, lending ambiguity as to what Applicant is distinctly limiting. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claims 2-7, Applicant recites in the preamble of these claims “System (100, 200, 300, 400)”. This term lacks antecedent basis as its unclear if Applicant is referencing the Deformable vertical photovoltaic system (100, 200, 300, 400), or if a different system is being referenced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 3, Applicant recites, “an axis (B,C)”. Its unclear if there are to axes present or a singular axis present. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant recites, “wherein one of the elements”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis as its unclear which elements Applicant is referencing. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant recites, “amongst a rotationally free attachment means (115,120)”. Applicant has already associated (115,120), with the first and second attachment means, respectively. Thus, its unclear if a new attachment means that’s rotating freely is being introduced or if Applicant is further limiting the structure of the first and second attachment means. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant recites, “and the other a shaft”. Its unclear how the phrase, “the other” further limits the shaft. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites, “wherein one of the elements”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis as its unclear which elements Applicant is referencing. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites, “amongst a translationally free attachment means (115,120)”. Applicant has already associated (115,120), with the first and second attachment means, respectively. Thus, its unclear if a new attachment means that’s translating freely is being introduced or if Applicant is further limiting the structure of the first and second attachment means. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “the translationally free attachment means (115,120)”. Applicant has already associated (115,120), with the first and second attachment means, respectively. Thus, its unclear if a new attachment means that’s translating freely is being introduced or if Applicant is further limiting the structure of the first and second attachment means. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant recites, “the translationally free attachment means (115,120)”. Applicant has already associated (115,120), with the first and second attachment means, respectively. Thus, its unclear if a new attachment means that’s translating freely is being introduced or if Applicant is further limiting the structure of the first and second attachment means. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “Photovoltaic system (100, 200, 300, 400) according to claim 1”. Its unclear if Applicant is referencing the deformable vertical photovoltaic system or if a different system is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “the module”. This term lacks antecedent basis as its unclear if its referencing the photovoltaic module already recited or if a different module is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “(100, 200, 300, 400)”. There’s no recitation of 200, 300, or 400 in the drawings, and while reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The numerical values do not correspond to anything within the detailed description or drawings, lending ambiguity as to what Applicant is distinctly limiting. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “(400)”. There’s no recitation of 400 in the drawings, and while reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The numerical values do not correspond to anything within the detailed description or drawings, lending ambiguity as to what Applicant is distinctly limiting. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “Photovoltaic system (400) according to claim 1”. Its unclear if Applicant is referencing the deformable vertical photovoltaic system or if a different system is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “at least one photovoltaic module”, and “said module”. Its unclear if the module is referencing the photovoltaic module or if a new module is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “at least one photovoltaic module”, and “securing an upper part of at least one module”. Its unclear if the at least one module is one of the at least one photovoltaic module or if a different module is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “at least one photovoltaic module”, and “the module”. Its unclear if the module is referencing the photovoltaic module or if a new module is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “at least one post”. Its unclear if this is the same at least one post already recited or if a different at least one post is being introduced. 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, 4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Densham et al. (US 2017/0207744 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Densham et al. discloses a deformable vertical photovoltaic system (Figure 1 & Paragraph 0057) comprising:
a photovoltaic module having a front referred to as the principal surface of the module parallel to the plane formed by the active parts of the photovoltaic cells (Fig. 1, #106-#110 & #114-#120 – Paragraph 0059); and
a post having an axis (Fig. 1, #56 & Paragraph 0058);
a first attachment means referred to as the lower attachment means for attaching a lower portion of a module to a post (Fig. 2, #140 are leaf springs attached to lower portions of the module – Paragraph 0060);
a second attachment means referred to as the upper attachment means for attaching an upper portion of a module to a post (Fig. 2, #130/#138 & Paragraph 0060-0061);
the first attachment means referred to as the lower attachment means is deformable (Fig. 2, #140 & Paragraph 0019);
the second attachment means referred to as the upper attachment means is free to rotate on an axis perpendicular to the axis of the post and parallel to the principal surface of the module (Fig. 2, #130/#138 parallel to surface of module & Paragraph 0060-0061 & 0069-0070 – as load is applied to the panel its biased downward and elements 130/138 would be parallel to principal surface of the module).
In view of Claim 4, Densham et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Densham et al. discloses the upper attachment means is rotationally attached to the post via a hole and a shaft that form a pivot link (See Fig. 2, #138 has a hole and there is a bolt/shaft that is pivotally connected to the photovoltaic module).
In view of Claim 8, Densham et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Densham et al. teaches that the photovoltaic module is rectangular and the short side of the bottom surface of the photovoltaic module faces the ground, which is a surface on which the photovoltaic system is installed (Fig. 1, #106-#112 bottom surfaces are facing the ground).
In view of Claim 9, Densham et al. is relied for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Densham et al. teaches one cross member arranged under the module and positioned facing a surface on which the photovoltaic system is installed and having extremities and at least two fastenings such that each fastening is configured to secure an individual extremity of at least one such cross-member to the post (See Annotated Densham Fig. 3, below), the cross-member is arranged and secured between two posts (Fig. 2, this configuration is present at the lower attachment means of the “middle” modules, thus the end modules have posts that secure them an the cross-member of the middle modules would be between the “end” posts).
Annotated Densham Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
645
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, and 5-7 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.
Claim 10 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