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 § 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) 139-155 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN113981969, Machine Translation) in view of Zuritis (US Pub No. 2021/0408959)
Regarding Claim 138, Chen et al. teaches a system [Fig. 7, middle of page 6 in translated document] comprising:
a platform [entire structure in Fig. 6, middle of page 6] configured to carry and transport a plurality of posts [44, Fig. 6-7, middle of page 6] over a terrain [Fig. 6-7, middle of page 6];
a post feeder [Fig. 5, see entire structure of fig. 5, top of page 6 in translated document] configured to singulate one or more posts from the plurality of posts [43 comprises a plurality of 44 which are separate from each other, Fig. 6-7, middle of page 6];
a robotic arm [see entire structure of fig. 3, middle of page 5] configured to grip the one or more posts from the post feeder [see all figures in figure 7, the posts are transferred from the platform to the load driving mechanism by the robotic arm and post feeder]; and
a load driving mechanism [1, Fig. 1, middle of page 4, and figure 7] configured to install the one or more posts on a ground of the terrain [see annotated figures below],
The rectangle shows the platform, the circle shows the robotic arm and the post feeder, the platform is shown in figure 6, the robotic arm is shown in figure 3, and the post feeder is shown in figure 5. Figures 7, 6, 3 and 5 are shown below from top left to bottom right. The dotted rectangle is the area of the load driving mechanism in figure 7.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
757
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
489
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
416
701
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
262
531
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chen et al. is silent on wherein the one or more posts installed onto the terrain are configured to support one or more solar modules.
Zuritis et al. teaches a load driving mechanism that installs posts into a ground of a terrain [Fig. 5, 0016]. The posts are used for solar modules [Fig. 3, 0026].
Since Chen et al. teaches a device that drives posts into the ground, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the post of Chen et al. in a solar module as taught by Zruitis et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design 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.).
Regarding Claim 139, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the plurality of posts comprises one or more bundles, and wherein each bundle of the one or more bundles comprises a number of posts ranging from about three posts to about three hundred posts [Fig. 6].
Regarding Claim 140, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the post feeder comprises a rotating shaft [317, Fig. 3, middle of page 4] and a plurality of fins [3171 and 3178, Fig. 5, middle of page 4] coupled to the rotating shaft [317, Fig. 3, middle of page 4],
Regarding Claim 141, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein each fin of the plurality of fins comprises an opening, and wherein the platform is configured to release the one or more posts to the opening of the fin when the shaft rotates the plurality of fins to a position that has the opening located underneath the platform [see rejection of claim 140, Fig. 7, middle of page 6].
Regarding Claim 142, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the post feeder further comprises a post holder configured to hold the one or more posts, and wherein the rotating shaft is configured to rotate the plurality of fins to release the one or more posts from the opening of the fin to the post holder [see rejection of claim 140, Fig. 7, middle of page 6].
Regarding Claim 143, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the robotic arm comprises a grabbing mechanism at a distal end of the robotic arm [Fig. 7, middle of page 6].
Regarding Claim 144, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the robotic arm further comprises an actuator [312, Fig. 3, page 6] configured to actuate the grabbing mechanism to grip the one or more posts [Fig. 7, middle of page 6].
Regarding Claim 145, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is teaches further comprising a vertical rail [35, Fig. 3, middle of page 5], wherein the robotic arm is configured to move up or down the rail to a lateral position of the post feeder [Fig. 7, middle of page 6].
Regarding Claim 146, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is teaches wherein the robotic arm is extendible [Fig. 3, and Fig. 7, middle of page 6]
Regarding Claim 147, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is teaches wherein the load driving mechanism comprises a hammer [14, Fig. 1, top of page 5].
Regarding Claim 148, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is teaches wherein the load driving mechanism is configured to apply a driving force to a distal end of the one or more posts [Fig. 1, top of page 5/7].
Regarding Claim 149, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is silent on wherein the load driving mechanism has a driving force length that is less than a full longitudinal length of the one or more posts.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the driving force and longitudinal length of the one or more posts, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the driving force and longitudinal length of the one or more posts are changed, the precise the parameters of the driving force and longitudinal length of the one or more posts would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “the load driving mechanism has a driving force length that is less than a full longitudinal length of the one or more posts.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the driving force and longitudinal length of the one or more posts to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 150, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches further comprising a post retention mechanism configured to prevent the one or more posts from displacing or decoupling from the robotic arm when the one or more posts are being installed on the ground [see 12 for post retention mechanism, Fig. 2, middle of page 5].
Regarding Claim 151, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the robotic arm is configured to (i) rotate to a horizontal position to grip the one or more posts and (ii) rotate from the horizontal position to a vertical position to couple the one or more posts to the post retention mechanism [Fig. 7, page 6]
Regarding Claim 152, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is silent on the post retention mechanism comprises one or more rollers configured to retain the one or more posts close to the ground.
Zuritis et al. teaches a post tension mechanism comprises one or more rollers configured to retain the one or more posts close to the ground [Fig. 5, 0028].
Since modified Chen et al. teaches the use of a device for driving a post into the ground, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention provide the post tension mechanism of Zuritis et al. to the load driving mechanism of modified Chen et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design 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.).
Regarding Claim 153, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches further comprising one or more sensors configured to identify one or more locations on the ground of the terrain at which the one or more posts are to be installed [see 11 and 13 as sensors, bottom page 4 and top of page 5]
Regarding Claim 154, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of (i) a differential global positioning system (GPS) system, (11) a camera, (ili) lidar, or (iv) a laser tracking system [see 11, Fig. 2, bottom of page 4, and top of page 5]
Regarding Claim 155, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the robotic arm and the load driving mechanism are configured to be mounted on a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is configured to move between the post feeder and one or more locations at which the one or more posts are to be installed [Fig. 7, bottom of page 6].
Claim(s) 156-157 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN113981969, Machine Translation) in view of Zuritis (US Pub No. 2021/0408959) as applied above in addressing claim 138, in further view of Frederick (US Pub No. 2004/0099063)
Regarding Claim 156, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is silent on further comprising a testing tool configured to perform a force test after the one or more posts have been installed on the ground.
Frederick et al. teaches a sensor on a pile being driving to the group which provides the force being applied to the pile [0012].
Since modified Chen et al. teaches the use of a pile driving device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the sensor of Frederick et al. on the system of modified Chen et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design 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.).
Regarding Claim 157, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the testing tool is configured to apply a pull force on the one or more posts in at least one of a lateral direction or a vertical direction [see rejection of claim 156].
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