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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-22 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 28 of the specification references figure 6A, however there does not appear to be a figure 6A in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 states “a first connector bracket connected to and extending at least one of between the first and second elongated rails”, this limitation is written in a confusing manner where it is not exactly clear what is being claimed. Based on the applicant’s disclosure the examiner believes that this is meant to state “a first connector bracket connected to and extending between the first and second elongated rails”, and the claim will be examined in this manner.
Claims 2-8 are rejected due to their respective dependencies on claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haastert et al. (PGPub #2022/0256779) in view of Shamir et al. (PGPub #2023/0309460), and Iwai (US #9,781,884).
Regarding claim 9, Haastert teaches a solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly, comprising: a pair of elongated rails (22 as seen in figure 1) configured to be supported on a surface (12, and 22 as seen in figure 1); a pair of front legs (Shown below in figure 1) each having a first end coupled to a respective one of the pair of rails (22, and 30 as seen below in figure 1), and a second end (30 as seen below in figure 1); a pair of rear legs (Shown below in figure 1) each having a first end coupled to a respective one of the pair of rails (22, and 30 as seen below in figure 1), and a second end (30 as seen below in figure 1); a support assembly (Shown below in figure 1) coupled to the second end of each of the legs (Shown below in figure 1, as can be seen the top end of each of the legs meet at the support assembly); a solar panel supported by the support assembly (28, and 30 as seen below in figure 1); and a fluid dispersion member (26 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 43, line 1-Paragraph 44, line 2, and Paragraph 59, lines 1-8) supported below the solar panel (26, and 28 as seen in figure 1) and configured to supply fluid to plant matter extending between the pair of elongated rails supported by the surface and located directly vertically below the solar panel (26 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 43, line 1-Paragraph 44, line 2, and Paragraph 59, lines 8), but does not teach that the surface is a roof surface, and that the fluid dispersion member is positioned closer to the solar panel than to the plant matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
751
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Shamir does teach the surface is a roof surface (Abstract, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the solar panel and plants supported by a roof surface because Haastert and Shamir are both solar panel systems that grow plants beneath the solar panels. The motivation for having the solar panel and plants supported by a roof surface is that it allows surfaces that might not be otherwise used to be used for energy generation and plant cultivation while also providing more direct solar exposure to the system. But Shamir does not teach that the fluid dispersion member is positioned closer to the solar panel than to the plant matter.
However, Iwai does teach that the fluid dispersion member is positioned closer to the solar panel than to the plant matter (26, 30, 50, and Element P as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fluid dispersion member closer to the solar panel than the plant matter because Haastert and Iwai are both solar panel systems that have sprinklers and plants located beneath the solar panel. The motivation for having the fluid dispersion member closer to the solar panel than the plant matter is that it allows the dispersed fluid to spread out more as it heads toward the plants to allow the dispersion members to cover a greater portion of the plant material.
Regarding claim 11, Haastert as modified by Shamir and Iwai teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 9, wherein the pair of elongated rails includes a first elongated rail and a second elongated rail (22, and 42 as seen in figure 1 of Haastert), and wherein the first elongated rail includes a first longitudinally-extending channel (42, and 48 as seen in figure 2 of Haastert); and further comprising: a water source located on the first elongated rail (Paragraph 93 of Haastert) and in fluid communication with the fluid dispersion member (Paragraph 41, lines 1-14, Paragraph 59, lines 1-8, and Paragraph 93, lines 1-6 of Haastert). But Haastert does not teach that the fluid source is an irrigation line located within and extending along the first longitudinally extending channel.
However, Iwai does teach that the fluid source is an irrigation line located within and extending along the first longitudinally extending channel (20a, and 26 as seen in figure 3, and Column 5, lines 30-39, this teaches that a supply pipe for the sprinkler can pass through a frame member supporting the solar panels, and for a pipe to be able to run through a frame member there must be a longitudinally extending channel that it is placed in). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water source being a pipe running through the channel of the frame member because Haastert and Iwai are both solar panel systems that have sprinklers and plants located beneath the solar panel. The motivation for having the water source being a pipe running through the channel of the frame member is that it helps to protect the water source by having it located within another object to help protect it from being it or snagged which could damage the pipe.
Regarding claim 12, Haastert as modified by Shamir and Iwai teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 11, wherein the second elongated rail includes a second longitudinally-extending channel (22, and 42 as seen in figure1, and 42, and 48 as seen in figure 2 of Haastert, as can be seen each of the rails have the same shape).
Regarding claim 13, Haastert as modified by Shamir and Iwai teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 12, further comprising: an electrical line located within and extending along the second longitudinally extending channel (Paragraphs 91, and 92 of Haastert).
Regarding claim 14, Haastert as modified by Shamir and Iwai teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 11, wherein the first elongated rail has a C-shaped cross-sectional configuration (42, and 44 as seen in figure 2 of Haastert).
Regarding claim 15, Haastert as modified by Shamir and Iwai teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 9, wherein the fluid dispersion member includes at least one sprinkler (Paragraph 59 of Haastert).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haastert et al. (PGPub #2022/0256779) as modified by Shamir et al. (PGPub #2023/0309460), and Iwai (US #9,781,884) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lutian (PGPub #2020/0274480).
Regarding claim 10, Haastert as modified by Shamir and Iwai teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 9, but does not teach that each of the legs is telescopingly adjustable. However, Lutian does teach that each of the legs is telescopingly adjustable (Paragraph 30). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the legs be telescopingly adjustable because Haastert and Lutian are both support structures for solar arrays. The motivation for having the legs be telescopingly adjustable is that it can allow the panels to be moved which can help to improve the efficiency of the panels.
Claims 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haastert et al. (PGPub #2022/0256779) in view of Hirose et al. (PGPub #2016/0173022).
Regarding claim 16, Haastert teaches a solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly, comprising: elongated first and second rails (22 as seen in figure 1) each configured to be supported on a roof surface (The rails are capable of being placed on a roof surface), the first rail including a pair of sidewalls (42, and 48 as seen in figure 2) that cooperate to define a longitudinally-extending first channel (42, and 48 as seen in figure 2), wherein the sidewalls define a first height of the first rail (42, and 48 as seen in figure 2); a support arrangement supported above the first and second rails (22, 28, and 29 as seen in figure 1, as can be seen there is a support arrangement there is a support structure holding each of the solar panels together as a unit); a solar panel supported by the support arrangement (28, and 29 as seen in figure 1); but does not teach a first pair of sidewall extensions coupled to the pair of sidewalls of the first rail and that cooperate with the pair of sidewalls to define a second height that is greater than the first height.
However, Hirose does teach a first pair of sidewall extensions (11, and 11b as seen in figure 11, as can be seen the extension unit has a pair of side wall extensions) coupled to the pair of sidewalls of the first rail (11, 11b, and 62b as seen in figure 9) and that cooperate with the pair of sidewalls to define a second height that is greater than the first height (11, 11b, and 62b as seen in figure 9). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a pair of sidewall extensions coupled to the sidewalls and extending above the sidewalls because Haastert and Hirose are both solar array mounting systems with rails. The motivation for having a pair of sidewall extensions coupled to the sidewalls and extending above the sidewalls is that it helps to strengthen the connection between the solar panels and the rails to ensure that the panel is securely mounted and does not move in an undesirable manner.
Regarding claim 18, Haastert as modified by Hirose teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 16, wherein the second rail includes a pair of sidewalls that cooperate to define a longitudinally-extending second channel (22, and 42 as seen in figure1, and 42, and 48 as seen in figure 2 of Haastert, as can be seen each of the rails have the same shape).
Regarding claim 20, Haastert as modified by Hirose teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 16, wherein the second rail includes a pair of sidewalls that cooperate to define a longitudinally-extending second channel (22, and 42 as seen in figure1, and 42, and 48 as seen in figure 2 of Haastert, as can be seen each of the rails have the same shape), and wherein the sidewalls define a first height of the second rail (22, and 42 as seen in figure1, and 42, and 48 as seen in figure 2 of Haastert); but Haastert does not teach a second pair of sidewall extensions coupled to the pair of sidewalls of the second rail that cooperate with the sidewalls of the second rail to define a second height of the second rail that is greater than the first height of the second rail.
However, Hirose does teach a second pair of sidewall extensions (11 as seen in figure 3, 11, and 11b as seen in figure 11, as can be seen the extension unit has a pair of side wall extensions and there can be multiple extension for the multiple rails) coupled to the pair of sidewalls of the second rail (11, 11b, and 62b as seen in figure 9) that cooperate with the sidewalls of the second rail to define a second height of the second rail that is greater than the first height of the second rail (11, 11b, and 62b as seen in figure 9). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a pair of sidewall extensions coupled to the sidewalls and extending above the sidewalls because Haastert and Hirose are both solar array mounting systems with rails. The motivation for having a pair of sidewall extensions coupled to the sidewalls and extending above the sidewalls is that it helps to strengthen the connection between the solar panels and the rails to ensure that the panel is securely mounted and does not move in an undesirable manner.
Claims 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haastert et al. (PGPub #2022/0256779) as modified by Hirose et al. (PGPub #2016/0173022) as applied to claims 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Iwai (US #9,781,884).
Regarding claim 17, Haastert as modified by Hirose teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 16, but does not teach an irrigation line extending along the first channel. However, Iwai does teach an irrigation line extending along the first channel (20a, and 26 as seen in figure 3, and Column 5, lines 30-39, this teaches that a supply pipe for the sprinkler can pass through a frame member supporting the solar panels, and for a pipe to be able to run through a frame member there must be a longitudinally extending channel that it is placed in). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water source being a pipe running through the channel of the frame member because Haastert and Iwai are both solar panel systems that have sprinklers and plants located beneath the solar panel. The motivation for having the water source being a pipe running through the channel of the frame member is that it helps to protect the water source by having it located within another object to help protect it from being it or snagged which could damage the pipe.
Regarding claim 19, Haastert as modified by Hirose teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 18, further comprising: an electrical line extending along the second channel (Paragraphs 91, and 92 of Haastert). But does not teach an irrigation line extending along the first channel.
However, Iwai does teach an irrigation line extending along the first channel (20a, and 26 as seen in figure 3, and Column 5, lines 30-39, this teaches that a supply pipe for the sprinkler can pass through a frame member supporting the solar panels, and for a pipe to be able to run through a frame member there must be a longitudinally extending channel that it is placed in). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the water source being a pipe running through the channel of the frame member because Haastert and Iwai are both solar panel systems that have sprinklers and plants located beneath the solar panel. The motivation for having the water source being a pipe running through the channel of the frame member is that it helps to protect the water source by having it located within another object to help protect it from being it or snagged which could damage the pipe.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haastert et al. (PGPub #2022/0256779) as modified by Hirose et al. (PGPub #2016/0173022) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Shamir et al. (PGPub #2023/0309460).
Regarding claim 21, Haastert as modified by Hirose teaches the solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly of claim 16, but does not teach a planter assembly configured to house plant matter therein and positioned proximate the first rail, the planter assembly having a height that is equal to or less than the first height. However, Shamir does teach a planter assembly (920) configured to house plant matter therein (920 as seen in figure 9A, and Paragraph 116) and positioned proximate the first rail (920 as seen below in figure 9A), the planter assembly having a height that is equal to or less than the first height (920 as seen below in figure 9A). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a planter near the first rail with a height less than the first rail because Haastert and Shamir are both solar arrays used to help grow plants. The motivation for having a planter near the first rail with a height less than the first rail is that it helps to protect the plant material by having the rails act as an outer boundary the can help to prevent damage to the planter.
PNG
media_image2.png
653
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haastert et al. (PGPub #2022/0256779) in view of Kim et al. (PGPub #2023/0361714).
Regarding claim 22, Haastert teaches a solar panel and irrigation arrangement support assembly kit, comprising: elongated first and second rails (22 as seen in figure 1) each configured to be supported on a roof surface (The rails are capable of being placed on a roof surface), the first rail including a pair of sidewalls (42, and 48 as seen in figure 2) that cooperate to define a longitudinally-extending first channel (42, and 48 as seen in figure 2), wherein the sidewalls define a first height of the first rail (42, and 48 as seen in figure 2); a support arrangement supported above the first and second rails (22, 28, and 29 as seen in figure 1, as can be seen there is a support arrangement there is a support structure holding each of the solar panels together as a unit); a solar panel supported by the support arrangement (28, and 29 as seen in figure 1); but does not teach a first pair of sidewall extensions configured to couple to the pair of sidewalls of the first rail and that cooperate to define a second height of the first rail that is greater than the first height of the first rail; and a second pair of sidewall extensions configured to couple to the pair of sidewalls of the first rail and that cooperate to define a third height of the first rail that is greater than the second height of the first rail.
However, Kim does teach a first pair of sidewall extensions configured to couple to the pair of sidewalls of the first rail (The shorter of the sidewall brackets 14, and 11 as seen in figure 3, as can be seen these extensions are applied to each sidewall of the system of Kim, and applying these extensions to each of the sidewalls of Haastert would result in a pair of extensions on each rail) and that cooperate to define a second height of the first rail that is greater than the first height of the first rail (11, and 14 as seen in figure 3); and a second pair of sidewall extensions configured to couple to the pair of sidewalls of the first rail (The longer of the sidewall brackets 14, and 11 as seen in figure 3, as can be seen these extensions are applied to each sidewall of the system of Kim, and applying these extensions to each of the sidewalls of Haastert would result in a pair of extensions on each rail) and that cooperate to define a third height of the first rail that is greater than the second height of the first rail (11, and 14 as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first set of sidewall extensions that are taller than the first heigh and a second set of sidewall extensions that are taller than the first set because Haastert and Kim are both rail mounting systems for solar arrays. The motivation for having a first set of sidewall extensions that are taller than the first heigh and a second set of sidewall extensions that are taller than the first set is that it allows the supports for the solar array to be directly connected to the sidewalls to provide a secure connection and the difference in height allows the array to be angled which can improve the efficiency of the array.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights