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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-18 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a lock for locking the anchor piles relative to the fastener” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (e.g., paragraph [0050] of the instant published application discloses screws).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-4 and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112117957 A, Kawabe.
Regarding claim 1
Kawabe a support structure (corresponding to fixing tool 1) for at least one solar panel (30) [Figs. 8, 9 and 16, paras. 0117, 0121-0127 and 0131], comprising at least one support post (corresponding to screw pile 36) provided with a fastener (corresponding to main body 2) associated with anchor piles (corresponding to fixing piles 20) to be driven into soil (ground 50) [Figs. 8-9 and 16, paras. 0090 and 0101], wherein the support post (36) extends beyond the fastener (2), opposite to the at least one solar panel (30), in order to be driven into the soil (50) [Figs. 8-9, 16, para. 0124].
PNG
media_image1.png
502
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
374
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kawabe, Figs. 8 and 9
The limitation “for at least one solar panel” is considered intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Since the structure of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the same is considered capable of performing the intended use. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See in re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 2
Kawabe teaches the support structure as set forth above, wherein the fastener (2) comprises a fitting (corresponding to pair of split cylindrical portions 3) added onto the support post (36) [Fig. 7 and para. 0124].
Regarding claim 3
Kawabe teaches the support structure as set forth above, wherein the fastener (2) comprises two half-fittings (two split cylindrical portions 3) [Fig. 7 and para. 0124].
Regarding claim 4
Kawabe teaches the support structure as set forth above, wherein the two half- fittings (3) are assembled to each other by one or more of the anchor piles (20) [Figs. 7-14].
Regarding claim 7
Kawabe teaches the support structure as set forth above, wherein the support post (36) is formed by a profile [Figs. 8-9 and 16].
Regarding claim 8
Kawabe teaches the support structure as set forth above, wherein the anchor piles (20) are inclined relative to the support post (36) [Figs. 8-9 and 16].
Regarding claim 9
Kawabe teaches the support structure as set forth above, wherein the angle between one of the anchor piles (20) and the support post (support port is extends in the direction of the large cylinder part 3) measures at least 15° (20° to 45°)[Figs. 2a-2b and 7-10, para. 100].
Regarding claim 10
Kawabe teaches the support structure as set forth above, further comprising a lock (corresponding to screws and bolts) for locking the anchor piles (20) relative to the fastener (2) (“aligning the two threaded holes and fixing them with a fastening screw, the fixing pile 20 and the small-diameter cylindrical portion 10 are firmly integrated”) [para. 0118].
Regarding claim 11
Kawabe teaches the support structure as set forth above, wherein an end of the support post (36) opposite to the solar panel (30) is tapered (see front end part 37) [Figs. 8-9 and 16, para. 0121].
Regarding claim 12
Kawabe a method for mounting a support structure (corresponding to fixing tool 1) for at least one solar panel (30) [Figs. 8, 9 and 16, paras. 0117, 0121-0127 and 0131], the method comprising:
driving at least one support post (corresponding to screw pile 36) of the support structure into the soil (ground 50) [Figs. 8-9 and 16, paras. 0090 and 0101],
providing a fastener (corresponding to main body 2) associated with anchor piles (corresponding to fixing piles 20) for anchoring said support post (36) (“fixing piles 20 are piles for embedding in the ground 51 in order to be used together with the main body 2 to firmly fix (prevent from falling off) the screw piles 36 or the like…”) [Figs. 8-9 and 16, paras. 0090, 0101 and 0117]; and
driving said anchor piles (20) into the soil (50) [Figs. 8-9 and 16, para. 0117].
Regarding claim 13
Kawabe teaches the mounting method as set forth above, comprising drilling at least one of the fastener (2) and the support post (36) to accommodate a joint (screw or bolt) for fixing the fastener (2) to the support post (36) [Fig. 7, paras. 0096 and 0124].
Regarding claim 14
Kawabe a system comprising a solar panel (30) and a support structure (corresponding to fixing tool 1) [Figs. 8, 9 and 16, paras. 0117, 0121-0127 and 0131], the support structure (1) comprising:
at least one support post (corresponding to screw pile 36) provided with a fastener (corresponding to main body 2) associated with anchor piles (corresponding to fixing piles 20) to be driven into soil (ground 50) [Figs. 8-9 and 16, paras. 0090 and 0101], wherein
the support post (36) extends beyond the fastener (2), opposite to the at least one solar panel (30), in order to be driven into the soil (50) [Figs. 8-9, 16, para. 0124].
PNG
media_image3.png
248
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kawabe, Fig. 16
Regarding claim 15
Kawabe teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the fastener (2) comprises a fitting (corresponding to pair of split cylindrical portions 3) added onto the support post (36) [Fig. 7 and para. 0124].
Regarding claim 16
Kawabe teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the fastener (2) comprises two half-fittings (two split cylindrical portions 3) [Fig. 7 and para. 0124].
Regarding claim 17
Kawabe teaches the system as set forth above, wherein the two half- fittings (3) are assembled to each other by one or more of the anchor piles (20) [Figs. 7-14].
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) 5-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe, as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-17 above, and further in view of DE 10 2013 006 530 A1, Beck.
Regarding claims 5 and 18
Kawabe teaches the support structure as set forth above, wherein the support post (36) extends beyond the fastener (2), opposite to the at least one solar panel (30) [Figs. 8-9 and 16].
Kawabe is silent to the support post (36) extending by at least 50 cm.
Beck teaches a support structure for a solar panel (see photovoltaic module 6), comprising a support post (2) that extends beyond a fastener (plate), opposite to the at least one solar panel (6), by at least 50 cm (known lengths for support posts include lengths of about 80 cm to 110 cm for short supports, and about 150 cm up to 300 cm or more for long supports) [Pages 2-4].
Beck further teaches that the length of the post is selected such that high stability against wind loads in all directions is achieved while taking into consideration the cost of materials [Pages 3-4].
Kawabe and Beck are analogous inventions in the field of support structures for solar panels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the intention to modify the support post of Kawabe such that is extends beyond the fastener, opposite to the at least one solar panel, by at least 50 cm, as disclosed in Beck, for the purpose of providing a reliable installation in which posts have lengths that allow them to be driven into the ground such that they can withstand wind loads in all directions.
Further, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the length that the support post extends beyond the fastener, opposite the at least one solar panel (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired stability while minimizing cost of materials. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 6
Kawabe is silent to the support post (36) being hollow.
Beck teaches a support structure for a solar panel, wherein support posts may be constructed as hollow cylinders in order to reduce the cost of materials [Abstract and page 3].
Kawabe and Beck are analogous inventions in the field of support structures for solar panels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the intention to modify the support post of Kawabe to be hollow, as disclosed in Beck, for the purpose of reducing the cost of materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0367085 A1, Russel teaches a support structure for a solar panel (312) comprising a support post (308) driven intro the ground (306), and a fastener [Figs. 3-4, paras. 0086 and 0089].
US 2015/0211200 A1, Nishioka et al. teaches a support structure (1) comprising a fastener (2a) associated with anchor piles (3) to be driven into soil (ground) [Figs. 1-2, paras. 0024-0025].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721