DETAILED ACTION
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 .
112f
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Specifically, in claim 1, the limitation of “means of photovoltaics” will be interpreted as “solar modules” according to figure 1 and the last paragraph of page 8.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, line 5, the limitation of “the other” lacks antecedent basis.
In line 3, the limitation of “each solar surface” lacks antecedent basis.
In line 9, the limitation of “the maximum distance” lacks antecedent basis.
In line 10, the limitation of “the respective solar module” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4, the limitation of “each string” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 5, the limitation of “an outer edge” is cited in each claim, it is unclear if they are the same or different.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, the limitation of “a string” is cited twice, it is unclear if they are the same or different.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation of “the same distance” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 5 the limitation of “the maximum distance”
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of “the outer edges” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 6-7, and 9-10 are also rejected since the claims depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liu (WO2013/181244, Machine translation)
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al. discloses (the abstract, figures 2-4, 6 and 8, paragraphs 4-7, 10-14, 24, 26, 28 and 35) an installation for generating electricity by means of photovoltaics,
wherein the installation comprises at least four solar modules (see figure 6 and compare with figures 2-3. Figure 6 shows schematically five PV elements (see figure 24) on each solar surface ("PV cell layers" 205, 214, 0009). As can be seen in figures 2-3, there can also be more than 5 PV elements on each solar surface. The PV elements can be regarded as solar modules),
wherein the solar modules are distributed over at least (according to paragraph 4 "more than two PV cell layers may be provided") two solar surfaces (see "the first PV cell layer 406" and "the second PV cell layer 414" in figures 2-3 and 6, 0018, ), such that each solar surface has at least two solar modules (see figure 6 and compare with figures 2-3),
wherein the solar surfaces (204, 206, Fig. 3, 0002) are arranged so as to be vertically offset in parallel to each other (see figure 3 and compare with figures 2 and 6, paragraphs 11 and 14: "being offset vertically"),
wherein the solar modules are connected in at least two strings (see figure 6 which shows two strings; see also figure 8), d) wherein each of the at least two strings (see figure 6) comprises at least one solar module on at least two different solar surfaces (204, 206, see figures 2-3, 0012), e) wherein each string (204, 206) is assigned a working depth, wherein the working depth corresponds to the maximum distance of the solar modules of the string from an outer edge of the solar surface of the solar module in question, wherein the strings have at least two different working depths (in figures 2-3 the strings have the same working depth, but the embodiment in figure 4 shows different working depths for the string 406 and the string 410. This different working depth in figure 4 could also be used in embodiments 2-3 and 6; see Liu et al., paragraphs 4, 11 and 14).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Liu et al. teaches wherein each string is a series connection of individual solar modules [figure 6, each string is a series connection of individual solar modules; see also Liu et al., paragraphs 7 and 24: "The first and second PV cell layers 206, 214 include five (5) series PV elements each for illustration, although the arrangements of, and numbers of, the PV elements within each of the first and second PV cell layers 206, 214 may be parallel or mixed series-parallel"]
Regarding Claim 3, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Liu et al. teaches wherein all solar modules of a string comprise the same distance from an outer edge of the solar surface of the respective solar module [figure 4, compare with figures 2-3]
Regarding Claim 4, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Liu et al. teaches wherein each string is a series connection of parallel-connected groups of solar modules [figures 1-2, which show a parallel connection of modules (PV elements), which in turn are connected in series (see figures 6);]
Regarding Claim 5, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Liu et al. teaches wherein all groups of a string comprise the same utilization depth, wherein the utilization depth of a group corresponds to the maximum distance of the solar modules of the group from an outer edge of the solar surface of the respective solar module [figure 4, compare with figures 2-3, 0018, 0012]
Regarding Claim 6, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Liu et al. teaches wherein at least two solar modules of a solar surface are arranged mechanically connected in a panel, wherein the panel comprises at least two electrical connections, wherein each electrical connection is connected to at least one solar module, so that the solar modules of the panel can be connected via different, separate connections [paragraph 12: "The electrical connections to the busses 306a, 306b are a mechanical step for one of skill in the art having the benefit of the disclosure herein, and are not shown to promote clarity in the depiction of Fig. 3.": See also Liu et al., paragraphs 9, 16 and 35, figures 6 and 8;]
Regarding Claim 7, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Liu et al. teaches wherein each solar module of the panel comprises exactly one row of solar cells, wherein the rows of the at least two solar modules are arranged in parallel [figures 5 and 7 and figures 3A, 4A-4B and 10, and paragraphs 18 and 103;]
Regarding Claim 8, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Liu et al. teaches wherein the outer edges of the solar surfaces lie in an imaginary connecting plane, wherein the imaginary connecting plane encloses an angle of 90° with a horizontal [figures 2-4, 6 and 8; paragraphs 18 and 103;]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO2013/181244, Machine translation)
Regarding Claim 10, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Liu et al. teaches a noise barrier, wherein an installation according to claim 1, is installed on the noise barrier [According to Liu et al., paragraph 9, figure 2: "The article 200 may be a PV device integrated with a building material unit, for example a roofing shingle, a siding panel, a structure designed to fit in place of a number of building units, or other product designed for building integration." See also Liu et al., paragraph 13, according to which "the article 200 is installed horizontally or nearly horizontally, and a wall installation wherein the article 200 is installed vertically". Therefore, it would be obvious for a person skilled in the art before the filing of the invention to use it as a noise barrier.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO2013/181244, Machine translation) in view of Aylaian (US Pub No. 2004/0084077)
Regarding Claim 9, Liu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Liu et al. is silent on wherein the at least two strings are connected to different inverters or to independent inputs of an inverter [Liu et al. does not disclose inverters, but merely illustrates energy storage devices 610 in figure 6]. It would be obvious to a person skilled in the art before the filing of the invention to use other electrical components such as converters, inverters, etc. in the circuit without exercising inventive skill; such as the use of an inverter by Aylaian et al., paragraph 93: "inverter" as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728