DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 19/113,676, filed on 03/20/2025, which is a 371 of PCT/NL2022/050528, filed on 09/21/2022, and which claims foreign priority to NL 2029487, filed on 10/21/2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 10-15 are amended.
Claims 1-15 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the surface area protrudes at least partially and preferably completely beyond the support area”. The examiner determines that the phrase “preferably completely” poorly and insufficiently describes the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, as one cannot determine exactly the amount of protrusion beyond the support area is included in the claimed scope versus that which is not. For purposes of claim interpretation and review of prior art, the protrusion amount must be at least >0%. Claim 7 also recites “preferably”, and it is not clear whether this means optional.
Claim 1 recites “…a displacement system for a mover for a maintenance device, such as a gondola…” Based on the claimed language, and in the context of the earlier version of this limitation, the examiner determines that the phrase “such as” insufficiently describes the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Is a “gondola” absolutely required? The specification and the plain language of the claim does not inform the reader whether the recited displacement system must be similar to a gondola. For instance, does a traditional supported scaffold (such as those used for skyscraper window cleaning) read on the claimed limitation? Claims 6 and 7 have the same indefiniteness issue.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of "at a distance from a support, in particular the roof of a building". It is unclear whether the recitation cited after "in particular" is required by the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of "such as a hoisting device or a winch". The examiner determines that the phrase “such as” insufficiently describes the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
There is lack of antecedent basis for the recitation "the underside" in claim 3. Moreover, claim 3 further recites the limitation of "wherein it is in particular provided with openings between the solar panels ...". It is unclear whether the limitations after "in particular" are required by the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of "which is in particular rotatable about a vertical axis". It is unclear whether the limitation after "in particular" is required by the claimed invention.
In claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation of "the mover displacement device". It should be changed to "the displacement system" to be consistent with claim 1. Same issue exists in claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of "in particular also formed by rails". It is unclear whether the limitation after "in particular" is required by the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of "more particularly wherein the rails follow....." It is unclear whether the limitation that comes after "more particularly" is required by the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of "more in particular in an upright position". It is unclear whether the limitation that comes after "more in particular" is required by the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of "more specifically a 5G transmitter". It is unclear whether the limitation that comes after "more specifically" is required by the claimed invention.
Claim 13 also has two instances of "in particular".
Claim 14 recites the limitation of "fluid such as water....and more in particular comprising an additional mover.....such as a nozzle".
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The examiner determines after careful review of relevant prior art references, that no document, either alone or in combination with another, sufficiently teaches or suggests each and every one of the claimed features. In particular, no prior art reference fairly discloses a maintenance device (to carry workers) projecting outside/beyond the support (i.e., the roof of a building), where the support is spaced from a carrying structure having a surface of solar panels, where the support and surface for an air duct. The examiner notes that amendments to address the 112 issues set forth above may modify the claim scope and require further search and consideration of prior art references. The closest prior art of record is identified below.
ALLEN (US 2019/0305717 A1) broadly describes support structures for solar panels, with accessible space for workers (Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
HANSSON (SE 1951313 A1) broadly describes forming an air duct between a support surface and a supporting structure having solar panels (Fig. 2a).
PNG
media_image2.png
443
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
HONG (KR 2023-0111352 A) broadly describes challenges involved roofs with solar panels and the ability to employ the use of a carrying structure, such as a gondola (e.g., Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
360
465
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner