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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "first and second protective plate, respectively, are attached to the outermost solar panels on the outside at the innermost and outermost sides" of claim 27 and the collecting channel of claim 29 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the limitation "so-lar" in line 4. It is believed this is a typographical error and should instead be "solar". Claim 17 is further objected to for reciting “Solar energy system comprising…”. This should be corrected to be “A solar energy system comprising”. 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 20, 27-28, and 30-32 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 20 recites the limitation "the pulling rope" in line 2, “the compression force” in line 2, “the outermost upper beam” in line 2, and “the innermost upper beam” in line 3,all of which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “wherein a first and a second protective plate, respectively, are attached to the outermost solar panels on the outside at the innermost and outermost sides.” Claim 17 from which clam 27 depends upon has defined an outermost solar panel and an innermost solar panel only, and limitations in claim 27 appear to be directed to two outermost panels. Further, it is not understood what “at the innermost and outermost sides” is referring to, and how the protective plate, which is not defined in the drawings but appears to be the L-shaped element in figure 1, is attached to any solar panels, whether innermost or outermost.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein the package of solar panels is laterally uncovered and accordingly permeable to wind in the protective position”. It is not defined what “laterally uncovered” means. However, the specification, on page 3 lines 25-26 describes the solar panels not covered on the sides in the protective position, and claim 28 will be interpreted this way for examination purposes, however, clarification is required.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “A use of the solar energy system…”. This language is indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 30 recites the limitation "A use of the solar energy system...". This is a "use" claim which does not appear to purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2173.05(q)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 17, 19, 27-28, and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumgartner (U.S. 2016/0173025).
Regarding claim 17, Baumgartner teaches a solar energy system comprising: a plurality of solar panels (19) arranged in a row (see fig 2), wherein there is an innermost (leftmost panel 19 as seen in fig 1) and an outermost solar panel (rightmost panel 19 as seen in fig 1), and at least one holding element (13) oriented in the longitudinal direction of the so-lar energy system (as seen in fig 2), on which the solar panels (19) are held one behind the other (as seen in fig 2) and along which the solar panels (19) are displaceable (as indicated by the directional arrow in fig 1) by an engagement means (electrical drive described in [0049]) from an extended operating position into a retracted protective position and vice versa (as indicated by the directional arrow in fig 1), wherein adjacent solar panels (19) are connected to one another in an articulated manner (as seen in fig 4), such that a pushing or pulling force of a solar panel (19) is transmissible to an adjacent solar panel (19, such as seen in fig 1), wherein the outermost and the innermost solar panels (leftmost and rightmost panels 19) are pressed against one another in the protective position (as seen in fig 3) by a mechanical force (by the electrical drive described in [0049] and snap-in lugs 27), thereby forming a stable package of solar panels (fig 3) which enables the solar panels (19) to protect themselves from the effects of the weather.
Regarding claim 19, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 17. Baumgartner further teaches wherein a first hinge (21) and an upper beam (29) with a second hinge (20) are arranged on each solar panel (19), which hinges connect adjacent solar panels (19) to one another in an articulated manner (as seen in fig 4), wherein the upper beam (29) holds the solar panels (19) on the at least one holding element (13).
Regarding claim 27, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 17. Baumgartner further teaches, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, wherein a first (25) and a second protective plate (26), respectively, are attached to the outermost solar panels on the outside at the innermost (leftmost panel 19 as seen in fig 1) and outermost (rightmost panel 19 as seen in fig 1) sides.
Regarding claim 28, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 17. Baumgartner further teaches, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, wherein the package of solar panels (19) is laterally uncovered and accordingly permeable to wind in the protective position (as seen in fig 3).
Regarding claim 30, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 17. Baumgartner further teaches, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, the use of the solar energy system for spanning traffic areas for moving or stationary traffic (as seen in figs 1 and 2, the solar energy system could be deployed to span across any type of location needed).
Regarding claim 31, Baumgartner teaches the use of the solar energy system of claim 30. Baumgartner further teaches wherein the solar energy system is oriented with its longitudinal direction in the transverse direction to the traffic flow (as seen in figs 1 and 2, the solar energy system could be configured to be deployed to span across any type of location needed).
Regarding claim 32, Baumgartner teaches the use of the solar energy system of claim 30. Baumgartner further teaches wherein the solar energy system is oriented with its longitudinal direction parallel to the flow of traffic (as seen in figs 1 and 2, the solar energy system could be configured to be deployed to span across any type of location needed).
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) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (U.S. 2016/0173025) in view of Murata (JP2005101103A).
Regarding claim 18, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 17. While Baumgartner teaches a solar energy system with an outermost panel (rightmost panel 19 as seen in fig 1) and an innermost solar panel (leftmost panel 19 as seen in fig 1) with a mechanical force that is an electrical drive described in [0027] and snap-in lugs 27, Baumgartner also teaches other mechanical forces to move the solar panels into position in [0011] including rope pulls. However, Baumgartner offers no further details as far as a rope pull mechanical force to modify the position of the solar panels.
Murata teaches a similar solar energy system that uses a pulling element (wires 20) pulling on the outermost panel and a compression force, in particular a spring (28), acting on the innermost solar panel.
Baumgartner and Murata are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solar energy systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumgartner to incorporate the teachings of Murata and provide a solar energy system with a pulling rope and spring as the mechanical force that moves the assembly into a protected position. Doing so would utilize a non-electrically driven mechanical force to deploy the solar energy system, which is especially useful if power is not available in the area, or to ensure the functionality of the solar energy system in the event of a power failure, such as an extreme weather condition.
Regarding claim 20, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 17. While Baumgartner teaches a solar energy system with a protective position (as seen in fig 3) with a mechanical force that is an electrical drive described in [0027] and snap-in lugs 27, Baumgartner also teaches other mechanical forces to move the solar panels into position in [0011] including rope pulls. However, Baumgartner offers no further details as far as a rope pull mechanical force to modify the position of the solar panels.
Murata teaches a similar solar energy system that uses a pulling element (wires 20) engaging on the outermost upper beam and a compression force (by spring 28) engaging on the innermost upper beam.
Baumgartner and Murata are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solar energy systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumgartner to incorporate the teachings of Murata and provide a solar energy system with a pulling rope and spring as the mechanical force that moves the assembly into a protected position. Doing so would utilize a non-electrically driven mechanical force to deploy the solar energy system, which is especially useful if power is not available in the area, or to ensure the functionality of the solar energy system in the event of a power failure, such as an extreme weather condition.
Claim(s) 21, 22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (U.S. 2016/0173025) in view of Heckeroth (U.S. 7,365,266).
Regarding claim 21, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 19. While Baumgartner teaches upper beams (29) and a protective position (as seen in fig 3), it is silent as to a roof panel arranged on each of the upper beams.
Heckeroth teaches a similar solar energy system that uses a roof panel (34) arranged on the upper beams. The combination of Baumgartner and Heckeroth would see the roof panels (34) touch each other in the protective position (as seen in fig 3 of Heckeroth).
Baumgartner and Heckeroth are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solar energy systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumgartner to incorporate the teachings of Heckeroth and provide a solar energy system with a protective roof panel arranged on the upper beams. Doing so would protect the edges of the panels when pulled into the protected position.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Baumgartner and Heckeroth teaches the solar energy system of clam 21. Baumgartner and Heckeroth further teach wherein the roof panels (34 Heckeroth) are designed as sacrificial elements (the combination teaches 34 as roof panels in the protective position, which would protect the solar panels and therefore be sacrificial elements).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Baumgartner and Heckeroth teaches the solar energy system of clam 21. The combination of Baumgartner and Heckeroth further teaches wherein the transition between adjacent roof panels (34 Heckeroth) is permeable to water (as the roof panels are not connected to one another in the combination taught by Baumgartner and Heckeroth, it stands to reason that the transition between adjacent roof panels would be permeable to water).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (U.S. 2016/0173025) in view of Heckeroth (U.S. 7,365,266) as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Ball (U.S. 2010/0236608).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Baumgartner and Heckeroth teaches the solar energy system of claim 21. Baumgartner and Heckeroth are silent as to the roof panels and/or the solar panels being heatable.
Ball teaches a similar solar energy system where the solar panels are heatable (as described in [0013]).
Baumgartner, Heckeroth, and Ball are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solar energy systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Baumgartner and Heckeroth to incorporate the teachings of Ball and provide solar panels that are heatable. Doing so would prevent snow and ice from collecting on the upper surface thereof or permit accelerated removal of snow and ice from the solar panel, as taught by Ball in [0013].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (U.S. 2016/0173025) in view of Woodall (U.S. 8,616,721).
Regarding claim 24, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 17. Baumgartner further teaches wherein the at least one holding element (13) is held on two masts (17) which are located opposite one another (as seen in fig 1), Baumgartner is silent as to the two masts being bent outwards in the longitudinal direction.
Woodall teaches a similar solar energy system that utilizes a mast that is bent outwards in the longitudinal direction (as seen in fig 5, the mast could be bent outwards in the longitudinal direction).
Baumgartner and Woodall are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solar energy systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumgartner to incorporate the teachings of Woodall and provide a mast that is bent outwards in the longitudinal direction. Doing so could ensure the stability of the solar energy system and pull the holding element taught.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (U.S. 2016/0173025) in view of Katz (U.S. 2018/0102734).
Regarding claim 25, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 19. While Baumgartner teaches hinges (20 or 21) between adjacent solar panels (19), it is silent as to there being gaps present between the hinges through which air can escape.
Katz teaches a similar solar energy system that includes gaps between adjacent solar panels at the hinges (as seen in fig 9, a gap exists between the solar panel 42 and the hinge 46). This gap could allow air to escape.
Baumgartner and Katz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solar energy systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumgartner to incorporate the teachings of Katz and provide a gap between the hinges of adjacent solar panels. Doing so could allow air to flow through the assembly when in the open position to reduce strain on the assembly.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (U.S. 2016/0173025) in view of Conger (U.S. 2012/0216855).
Regarding claim 29, Baumgartner teaches the solar energy system of claim 17. Baumgartner is silent as to a collecting channel arranged below the package of solar panels (19).
Conger teaches a similar solar energy system that includes a collecting channel (drainage gutter 508) below the package of solar panels.
Baumgartner and Conger are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solar energy systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baumgartner to incorporate the teachings of Conger and provide a collecting channel arranged below the package of solar panels. Doing so would collect and direct water away from the panel assembly, as seen in fig 59 and taught in [0147].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,742,163 and US 11,658,606 (teach collapsible solar panel assemblies).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights