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 second action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
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 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_image1.png
653
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15, and 22 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that the combination of Haastert and Hirose fail to teach claim 16. The applicant argues that Hirose does not teach that the components are abutting the ground, however Hirose is not relied upon to teach that the components are abutting the ground, and the limitations that Hirose is used to teach does not require any specific relationship with the ground. Additionally the applicant argues that element 11 of Hirose is not coupled to element 12, however, Hirose is not used to teach that elements 11 and 12 are coupled together, instead Hirose uses elements 11, 11b, and 62b to teach the connection, however, even if elements 11, and 12 were used to teach the connection the examiner believes that Hirose would still meet the limitations due to the very broad nature of the claim and the lack of specifics surrounding the specific structural nature of the connection as element 11 of Hirose is coupled to element 12 through element 6. The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument regarding the motivation for the change because the sidewall extensions of Hirose are significantly longer in the depth direction than the legs of Haastert and as such these longer continuous elements are less likely to fail than the more slender legs of Haastert which results in a stronger connection.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
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 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