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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/2/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0198453 to Keller, and further in view of US 2010/0000596 to Mackler (both references of record).
Regarding claims 1-15, Keller teaches a solar canopy system configured to collect solar energy, the system comprising
A frame (the frame is generally referred to in Fig. 1 by “111”, ¶0062, 0065) configured to support a plurality of solar panels 112 (Figs. 2, ¶0066), the frame further comprising
A plurality of vertical beams (not consistently labeled, exemplary vertical beam identified Marked-up Fig. 21 below; ¶0081)
A plurality of horizontal beams (exemplary horizontal beam identified in Marked-up Fig. 21)
A plurality of base modules 109 securely mounted to the ground (¶0065)
A plurality of vertical trusses 108 connecting the base modules to the frame
A plurality of main beams 107 to support the frame
A water diversion system configured to channel and divert water away from the solar canopy (the “configured to” language denotes an intended use limitation; Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. A skilled artisan would understand from at least the cited passages and Figs. that the disclosed structure is designed specifically for that intended use), the water diversion system further comprising
A plurality of horizontal strapping channels 124 (Figs. 4, ¶0069; the examiner could not confirm “strapping channel” as a particular term of the art that implicitly conveys more structure or function than “channel”) connecting the solar panels 112
A plurality of panel troughs 122 and yokes 130 connecting to the edge of the frame (Figs. 9 and 21 best show the extension of troughs 122 to edges of the frame)
An end trough 120 to divert water to the ground (Fig. 2B, ¶0067, 0068)
Wherein the frame is angled at an angle for the solar panels 112 to collect solar energy from the sun and enable water to be diverted away from the solar canopy (¶0063)
Wherein the solar canopy is configured to be watertight (Ibid.).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keller is clear that the system comprises elements for water collection and drainage (¶0066, 0067), but does not explicitly recite a downspout. Mackler teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use an end downspout to divert water to the ground so that the water can be made of use (Fig. 5, ¶0068).
Per claims 2 and 11, modified-Keller teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 10. The system further comprises a plurality of strapping caps 130 at the ends of the strapping channels 124 (elements 130 are positioned over elements 124 at their ends, as best seen in Figs. 7B, 11B, ¶0069, 0072; the examiner could not confirm “strapping cap” as a particular term of the art that implicitly conveys more structure or function than “cap”).
Per claim 3, modified-Keller teaches the limitations of claim 1. The main beams 107 are vertical main beams deployed in a vertical configuration (elements 107 have a slope with respect to the ground, as best seen in Fig. 1).
Per claim 4, modified-Keller teaches the limitations of claim 1. Keller does not teach that the main beams 107 further comprises end caps. Mackler teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form end caps (1102 of Fig. 11A) on main beams so that they may used for advertising (¶0045, 0078).
Per claims 5 and 12, modified-Keller teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 10. The panel troughs 122 further comprise a trough mount 132 to connect the panel troughs to the side of the main beam 107 (Fig. 7A, ¶0069).
Per claims 6 and 13, modified-Keller teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Mackler teaches that the end downspout of modified-Keller (502 of Fig. 5) is configured to connect the vertical truss (analogous element 124 of Fig. 4A) to the ground (¶0046, 0058), and is capable of configured to connect to a vertical truss of the solar canopy and divert water to the ground.
Per claims 7 and 14, modified-Keller teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10. The system further comprises expansion joints (see Marked-up Fig. 7A below) to connect two or more solar panel arrays (¶0069).
PNG
media_image2.png
372
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claims 8 and 15, modified-Keller teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 10. The solar canopy system and water diversion system components are made of extruded aluminum (¶0069, 0074).
Per claim 9, modified-Keller teaches the limitations of claim 1. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the angle of the solar canopy in order to best fit the usage requirements of the canopy (¶0063). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). The result of enabling water flow is an obvious result of such optimization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the references do not teach “full watertightness”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “full watertightness”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Keller references clearly teaches that the system is watertight (¶0067). Further, the lack of gaskets, caulking or sealants in establishing watertightness is not claimed. Additionally, the “interlocking” nature of components is not claimed, nor are the “concealed” nature of downspouts or thermal expansion joints. The nature of the components as extruded aluminum is recited in the alternative in claims 8 and 15. However, even if the limitation were not listed in the alternative, “extruded” is a product-by-process limitation, and judged according to MPEP §2113. The rejection of the claims over Keller and Mackler is therefore proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726