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
Claims 1-22 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurlagunda et al. (US 2017/0063290).
Regarding claim 17, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly comprising:
a housing (30) securely affixed to a structure (vehicle 8) during use; and
a set of sliding arms (34, 35) configured to extend outwardly when the extendable solar assembly extends from a retracted position to an extended position and collapse when the extendable solar assembly retracts from the extended position to the retracted position (see figs. 10 and 11, para [0048]); and
a set of solar panels (32,33) that are coupled to the set of sliding arms (34, 35), wherein the solar panels are configured to be stacked within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position (shown in figs., see abstract and para [0048]).
Regarding claim 18, Kurlagunda discloses and extendable solar assembly of claim 17 (see fig. 10, para [0048]). The limitation wherein the structure comprises an exterior surface of a vehicle is intended use and is given weight to the extent the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Kurlagunda discloses the intended use (see abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 17, wherein the set of sliding arms include two sliding arms, each configured to support an outside edge of the set of solar panels (shown in figs. 10 and 11, see para [0048]).
Regarding claim 20, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 17, wherein the set of sliding arms are retracted within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position (shown in figs. 2, 10-11, see abstract, para [0038] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 21, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 17, wherein when the set of solar panels are stacked within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position, at least one solar panel of the set of solar panels remains exposed, is able to gather sunlight to generate electricity, and comprises a top surface of the extendable solar assembly.
Regarding claim 22, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 17, wherein the extendable solar assembly comprises a self-contained, standalone unit configured to be removed and attached to another structure (shown in fig. 1, see abstract and para [0036], specifically clamping to a roof rack allows for removal).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda (US 2017/0063296).
Regarding claim 1, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly comprising:
a housing (6) securely affixed to a structure (vehicle 8) during use (see para [0038]);
a set of arms (24,25 of system 30) attached to the housing (6) (through frame bar 22) and configured to support a lead rail (23) of the extendable solar assembly as the extendable solar assembly extends from a retracted position to an extended position (see figs. 1 and 9, para [0045]-[0046]).
Kurlagunda within the expansion mechanism (30) of the cited embodiment does not disclose at least one track coupled to the housing and the lead rail and configured to extend and retract as the extendable solar assembly extends from the retracted position to the extended position; and
a set of solar panels coupled to the at least one track, wherein the solar panels are configured to be stacked within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position.
Within a further embodiment (shown in fig. 10), Kurlagunda discloses at least one track (34, 35) coupled to the housing (6) configured to extend and retract as the extendable solar assembly extends from the retracted position to the extended position; and
a set of solar panels (33, 32) coupled to the at least one track (34), wherein the solar panels are configured to be stacked within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position (see fig. 11, para [0048]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the scissor arms and lead rail of the first embodiment with the telescoping rails of the second embodiment as the scissors and lead rail provides an expansion mechanism for the telescoping tracks, allowing them to expand and retract.
The combination of the two embodiment discloses the at least one track coupled to the housing (see above) and the lead reail (attached to the lead rail at least through the solar panels.
Regarding claim 2, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1. The limitation that the structure comprises an exterior surface of a vehicle is intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Kurlagunda discloses the intended use (shown fig. 1, see abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, the at least one track comprising a first track and a second track (34, 35), wherein the set of solar panels are coupled to the first track and the second track (shown in fig. 10, see para [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the set of arms (24, 25), the at least one track (34, 35), and the set of solar panels (32, 33) are retracted within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position (see figs. 1 and 2, para [0038] and [0045]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, wherein when the set of solar panels are stacked within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position (see fig. 2 and 11), at least one solar panel of the set of solar panels remains exposed (see fig. 2), is able to gather sunlight to generate electricity, and comprises a top surface of the extendable solar assembly (see figs. 2 and 11, para [0038]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, wherein the extendable solar assembly comprises a self-contained, standalone unit configured to be removed and attached to another structure.
Regarding claim 10, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, further comprising one or more actuators connected to at least the lead rail and configured to cause the extendable solar assembly to extend from the retracted position to the extended position (see para [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 10, wherein the one or more actuators are retracted within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position (shown in fig. 2, i.e., entire mechanism is enclosed, see para [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, wherein the set of arms comprise actuated arms configured to cause the extendable solar assembly to move between the retracted position and the extended position (see para [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, further comprising a motor (no identifier, see para [0046]) configured to manipulate a strap or a cable (27) to cause extendable solar assembly to move between the retracted position and the extended position (see para [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, comprising a topmost solar panel of the set of solar panels (see fig. 10).
Kurlagunda does not disclose when the set of solar panels are stacked within the housing, the topmost solar panel comprises a curved solar panel.
Curved solar panels are a well-known expedient in the art (see MPEP 2144.03). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e.., a curved solar panel) for another known device (i.e., a solar panel of Kurlagunda), wherein the result is predictable, (i.e., a solar array). (See Wynn (US 11,764,726) as evidence.)
Regarding claim 15, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the set of solar panels are stacked face up within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position (shown in figs. 10-12, see para [0048]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wynn (US 11,764,726) and Van Straten (US 2023/0249625)
Regarding claim 7, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the set of solar panels are coupled to the at least one track via progressively taller risers.
Wynn and Van Straten are analogous art to Kurlagunda as Wynn and Van Straten disclose expandable and retractable solar modules on tracks. Wynn discloses different shapes suited for the intended structure (see discussion of claim 8 below) resulting in angled tracks (see obviousness discussion of claim 8). Van Straten similarly discloses an angled track wherein risers (144/148), progressively taller outward from center, are provided between the solar modules and the angled track (see para [0034]-[0038]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tracks of Kurlagunda to accommodate the shape of the structure and provide progressively taller risers because the risers allow for the solar modules to be connected to the shaped/angled tracks.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wynn (US 11,764,726).
Regarding claim 8, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one track comprises an angled track.
Wynn is analogous art to Kurlagunda as Wynn discloses an expandable and retractable solar array wherein the solar modules are supported by a track at the edge (see cols. 1 and 2, and claim 3). Wynn discloses wherein the track is angled (shown in fig. 5, 7, and 10-11, see cols. 6-7).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the track of Kurlagunda to be angled as modifying the track would allow conforming to any desired shape.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurlagunda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cyrus (US 2024/0146238).
Regarding claim 9, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one track comprises a stackable track including a series of stackable links, each pivotably movable with respect to an adjacent stackable link.
Cyrus is analogous art to Kurlagunda as Cyrus discloses an expandable and retractable solar array for a vehicle (see abstract). Cyrus discloses wherein the solar modules (38a-c) are connected to a deployable track (edge 48) wherein the tracks (edge 48) of each solar module are connected by a hinge (48) (shown in figs. 2-4, see para [0027]-[0031]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., the folding via hinge of the track and solar module of Cyrus) for another known device (i.e., the telescoping track and module of Kurlagunda), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., an expandable and retractable solar array).
Regarding claim 16, Kurlagunda discloses an extendable solar assembly of claim 1, wherein each solar panel of the set of solar panels is stacked in an alternating manner relative to at least one adjacent solar panel of the set of solar panels within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position (see fig. 9, solar modules are stacked alternately, see also para [0045]-[0046]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stacked solar modules of one embodiment with the stacked solar modules of another embodiment as the court has held it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (as taught by Kurlagunda), wherein the results are predictable, (i.e., an expandable, retractable energy system).
Alternatively, Kurlagunda as modified by Cyrus (see claim 9 above) discloses wherein each solar panel of the set of solar panels is stacked in an alternating manner relative to at least one adjacent solar panel of the set of solar panels within the housing when the extendable solar assembly is in the retracted position (shown in Cyrus fig. 4, see para [0027]-[0031]). See claim 9 for obviousness discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721