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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/12/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that invention I and III are not distinct, and they share the core structure. This is not found persuasive because invention I does not require the particulars of “a front surface, wherein the solar panel is angled at a slope such that the front surface is between 80° and 100° relative to a mean angle of the sun;” in invention III, and invention III does not require the particulars of “a self-cleaning solar panel system” in invention I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 3 and 7 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 3, the limitation of “the curved waveguide” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation of “a plurality of solar panels” is unclear if they are the same of different from “at least one solar panel” in claim 1.
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) 1-6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elseddawy (US Pat No. 11228276) in view of Kazys (Sensors 2015, 15, 19393-19415) and Williams (US Pat No. 4047992)
Regarding Claim 1, Elseddawy et al. teaches a self-cleaning solar panel system [C1 ln 60-67], the system comprising:
at least one solar panel [Fig. 1, C3 ln 1-15], wherein the solar panel is angled at a slope [Fig. 2];
Elseddawy et al. Is silent on at least one ultrasonic disc; at least one ultrasonic converter; at least one waveguide; and a generator.
Kazys et al. teaches an ultrasonic transducer with a metallic waveguide, comprising a ultrasonic disc [See Piezoelement in figure 3, the structure is circular meeting the limitation of a disk], a ultrasonic converter [The combination of electrodes and Piezoelement, Fig. 3], and a waveguide [see waveguide, Fig. 3, page 19399, top of page]
Since Elseddawy et al. teaches the use of ultrasound controller in figure 1, and 10 is taught as a ultrasonic transducer [C3 ln 1-10], converting AC to ultrasound by a piezoelectric [C3 ln 5-10], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the ultrasonic transducer of Elseddawy et al. with the ultrasonic transducer engineering design as taught by Kazys et al. in order to provide a ultrasonic transducer that can be utilized in extreme conditions [Abstract].
In addition, the combination would have been merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for ultrasonic transducers 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.).
Williams et al. teaches a current power supply is provided to furnish at least one of two preselected power levels to an ultrasonic inverter (which has a feedback circuit measuring amplitude and frequency of vibration, Fig. 2, C5 ln 30-40) which is part of a conventional transducer device [C3 ln 24-30], the configuration is used to provide improved overall reliability of the ultrasonic apparatus [C3 ln 10-20].
Since modified Elseddawy et al. teaches the use of a solar panel and the use of an ultra-sonic transducer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of invention to connect the power supply and inverter of Williams to the transducer and solar panels of Elseddawy et al. in order to provide transducer with improved overall reliability [C3 ln 10-20].
In addition, the combination would have been merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for ultrasonic transducers 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.).
Within the combination above, examiner is reading the power supply of William et al. in the combination as the generator.
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Elseddawy et al. teaches the system further comprising a vibration amplitude inverter [see rejection of claim 1, inverter of Williams et al.].
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Elseddawy et al. teaches wherein the vibration amplitude inverter is affixed to the system between the ultrasonic converter and the curved waveguide [see rejection of claim 1].
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Elseddawy et al. teaches wherein the waveguide is curved or straight [Kazys: Fig. 3, page 19399].
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Elseddawy et al. teaches wherein the slope of the solar panel is between 70° and 110° relative to a mean angle of the sun [C3 ln 10-25].
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Elseddawy et al. teaches wherein the ultrasonic converter and the ultrasonic disc are functionally connected via the waveguide [Kazys: Fig. 3, page 19399].
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Elseddawy et al. teaches wherein the ultrasonic converter and the ultrasonic disc are configured to deliver an excitation frequency that varies throughout delivery of the excitation frequency [C3 ln 39-60].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Elseddawy et al. teaches wherein the ultrasonic converter and the ultrasonic disc are configured to deliver a pulsing ultrasonic wave [C3 ln 35-45].
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Elseddawy et al. teaches wherein the ultrasonic disc is affixed to a front or a back surface of the at least one solar panel [The transducer is part of the structure so it would be technically on a front and a back surface].
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the ultrasonic converter is functionally connected to more than one ultrasonic disc such that the ultrasonic converter can deliver excitation frequency and ultrasonic waves to more than one solar panel [C3 ln 1-10].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Elseddawy (US Pat No. 11228276), Kazys (Sensors 2015, 15, 19393-19415) and Williams (US Pat No. 4047992) are the closest prior art.
Modified Elseddawy et al. teaches limitations of the claim but does not disclose the limitations of “the system further comprising a splitter box configured to electrically connect the generator to a plurality of solar panels and further configured to switch the flow of power from the generator between each of the solar panels.”
These references, nor any other reference or combination of references in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations of “the system further comprising a splitter box configured to electrically connect the generator to a plurality of solar panels and further configured to switch the flow of power from the generator between each of the solar panels.” in conjunction with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Therefore; claim 1 is allowed once the limitations of claim 7 are incorporated into claim 1 and the rejections under 35 USC 112 are overcome.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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
Prosecution Insights