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 .
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 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bellacicco et al. 2012/0027550.
In Re Claim 1, Bellacicco et al. teach a vehicle comprising: a vehicle truck bed (600) comprising a first end and a second end; (Fig. 9, 10, Fig 12) a support structure; (Base shown between 600 and 400, Fig. 10, Fig. 12) and an unloader (400) coupled to the support structure and configured to unload solar panel assemblies (100) from a cassette (500).
In Re Claim 2, Bellacicco et al. teach wherein the unloader comprises telescoping monorails (490, Paragraph 50). tort
In Re Claim 3, Bellacicco et al. teach wherein the telescoping monorails each comprises: a first portion coupled to the support structure; and a second portion coupled to the first portion. (490, Fig. 16a-16e)
In Re Claim 4, Bellacicco et al. teach wherein the telescoping monorails each further comprises a load balancer (480).
In Re Claim 5, Bellacicco et al. teach wherein the second portion is configured to move along a length of the first portion. (Fig. 16a-16e)
In Re Claim 7, Bellacicco et al. teach wherein: the support structure (Base shown between 600 and 400, Fig. 10, Fig. 12) is removably attached to the vehicle. (See Fig. 16a)
In Re Claim 9, Bellacicco et al. teach a conveyor (610) configured to move a cassette on the vehicle truck bed, the cassette being configured to hold the solar panel assemblies.
In Re claim 10, Bellacicco et al. teach wherein the solar panel assemblies held in the cassette are configured to extend across a full block row of a solar project. (Paragraph 30) (Fig. 22)
In Re Claim 17, Bellacicco et al. teach a method comprising: loading solar panel assemblies (100) onto a vehicle (600); transporting the solar panel assemblies on the vehicle to a pile row (340a, 340b, Fig. 12) of a solar project installation site; and individually unloading the solar panel assemblies along the pile row at the solar project installation site to facilitate installation of the solar panel assemblies on the pile row. (Fig. 13) (Paragraph 47)
In Re Claim 18, Bellacicco et al. teach wherein the solar panel assemblies loaded onto the vehicle are configured to extend across a full block row of the solar project installation site. (Paragraph 30) (Fig. 22)
In Re Claim 20, Bellacicco et al. teach wherein the solar panel assemblies are held on a cassette while transported on the vehicle. (Paragraph 35 and 36)
In Re Claim 21, Bellacicco et al. teach wherein the solar panel assemblies are loaded onto the vehicle at a mobile solar panel assembly facility located within the solar project installation site. (Paragraph 35, Fig. 6)
In Re Claim 22, Bellacicco et al. teach where in the solar panel assemblies are loaded onto the vehicle at a solar panel assembly facility located outside the solar project installation site. (See Claim 29)
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellacicco et al. and in view of Sager 2008/0277365.
In Re Claim 6, Bellacicco et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 3 as discussed above.
Bellacicco et al. do not teach wherein the telescoping monorails each further comprises: a cable comprising a first end and a second end, the first end of the cable being to the second portion; and a retention tool coupled to the second end of the cable, the retention tool being configured to retain and lift the solar panel assemblies.
However, Sager teaches wherein the telescoping monorails (131) each further comprises: a cable comprising a first end and a second end, the first end of the cable being to the second portion; (See cable hanging from second portion of 131, Fig. 5) and a retention tool (Hook connected to second end of cable, Fig. 5)coupled to the second end of the cable, the retention tool being configured to retain and lift the solar panel assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a cable and retention tool to the telescoping monorails in the vehicle of Bellacicco et al. as taught by Segar with a reasonable expectation for success in order to access more locations when moving material.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellacicco et al. and in view of Cunningham et al. 2006/0213653.
In Re Claim 8, Bellacicco et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 7 as discussed above.
Bellacicco et al. do not teach wherein: the support structure is configured to be removable from the vehicle to facilitate transport of the vehicle on public roads.
However, Cunningham et al. teach wherein: the support structure (36) is configured to be removable from the vehicle (10) to facilitate transport of the vehicle on public roads. (Paragraph 98)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a support structure configured to be removable in the vehicle of Bellacicco et al. as taught by Cunningham et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent damage to the platform.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellacicco et al. and in view of Andretich 2011/0025101.
In Re Claim 11-13, Bellacicco et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Bellacicco et al. do not teach wherein the support structure comprises: a first vertical portion positioned at the first end of the vehicle truck bed
a second vertical portion positioned at the second end of the vehicle truck bed; and
a horizontal portion that is coupled to the first vertical portion and the second vertical portion.
However, Andretich teaches wherein the support structure comprises: a first vertical portion (106-2, 106-b) positioned at the first end of the vehicle truck bed (102)
a second vertical portion (106-1, 106, b) positioned at the second end of the vehicle truck bed; and
a horizontal portion (110b) that is coupled to the first vertical portion and the second vertical portion; and wherein: the first vertical portion comprises a first frame spacer (106c); the second vertical portion comprises a second frame spacer (106c second side); and the horizontal portion comprises a frame (110); and wherein the horizontal portion further comprises a cover (111f) extended across the frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a support structure comprising a first vertical portion, second vertical portion and frame spacers in the vehicle of Bellacicco et al. as taught by Andretich with a reasonable expectation for success in order to conserve space on the vehicle bed for material.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellacicco et al. and in view of Herrman 6,591,919.
In Re Claim 14 and 15, Bellacicco et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Bellacicco et al. do not teach axles, each of the axles being driven and steerable.
However, Herrman teaches axles (axles for wheels 30), each of the axles being driven (Column 3, Lines 23-30) and steerable (See Fig. 7); and one or more side-slope levelers (18, 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use driven and steerable axles in the vehicle of Bellacicco et al. as taught by Herrman with a reasonable expectation for success in order to positioning time of the vehicle.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellacicco et al. and in view of Konaka et al. 2021/0194426 and in view of Flanigan et al. 2018/0115275.
In Re Claim 16, Bellacicco et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Bellacicco et al. do not teach wherein the solar panel assemblies each comprise: a torque tube; a set of solar panels affixed to the torque tube with brackets; bushings configured to attach the torque tube to pile caps; and a wire harness.
However, Konaka et al. teach wherein the solar panel assemblies (1) each comprise: a torque tube (4); a set of solar panels (10) affixed to the torque tube with brackets (6); bushings (5) configured to attach the torque tube to pile caps (3);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use solar panel assemblies comprising a torque tube in the vehicle of Bellacicco et al. as taught by Konaka et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to position the solar panel assemblies faster.
Bellacicco et al. do not teach solar panel assemblies comprising a wire harness.
However, Flanigan et al. teach solar panel assemblies (806) comprising a wire harness (836, 846, Fig. 10) (Paragraph 93 and 94)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use solar panel assemblies comprising a wire harness in the vehicle of Bellacicco et al. as taught by Flanigan et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to replace and install solar panel assemblies faster.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellacicco et al. and in view of Taha et al. 2020/0052644.
In Re Claim 19, Bellacicco et al. teach the vehicle of Claim 17 as discussed above.
Bellacicco et al. do not teach wherein: the solar panel assemblies comprise at least five respective solar panels affixed to a respective torque tube; and at least two respective torque tubes of the solar panel assemblies have different lengths from each other.
However, Taha et al. teach wherein: the solar panel assemblies comprise at least five respective solar panels (Square panels shown Fig. 2) affixed to a respective torque tube (105 on each side of 220, Fig. 1, Fig. 10a); and at least two respective torque tubes of the solar panel assemblies have different lengths from each other. (See different lengths of torque tube on each side of 220, Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a torque tube to the method of Bellacicco et al. as taught by Taha et al. et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to quickly position solar panel assemblies in place.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Poivet, Clemenzi et al., and Kamata teach a vehicle, Solar Panel assemblies and a pile row.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights