DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-11, and 14 are amended.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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 1, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE (KR 20130088106 A, see English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, LEE teaches a support structure for a plurality of solar cells (see the parasol with the plurality of solar cells) (see Fig. 8), the support structure comprising:
a truss (see the truss including the frame fixing parts 80 with the upper frame fixing parts and the lower frame fixing parts) (see Fig. 8 attached below) including a first plurality of beams defining a planar back layer (see the beams of the upper frame fixing parts defining a planar back layer) and a second plurality of beams extending from the planar back layer (see the beams of the lower frame fixing parts extending from the planar back layer) (see Fig. 8 attached below); and
a plate engaged with the second plurality of beams (see the plate with the solar cells 100, which is engaged with the beams of the lower frame fixing parts via the beams of the upper frame fixing parts) (see Fig. 8 attached below), the plate including a plurality of polygonal panels (see the plurality of triangle panels), the plurality of polygonal panels being arranged such that the plate has a non-planar surface (see the non-planar surface of the plate) (see Fig. 8 attached below),
wherein each polygonal panel of the plurality of polygonal panels is configured to support at least one solar cell of the plurality of solar cells (Since each of the plurality of triangle panels comprise the plurality of solar cells, each of the plurality of triangle panels supports the plurality of solar cells) (see Fig. 8 attached below).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, LEE teaches a modular support structure for a plurality of solar cells (see the parasol with the plurality of solar cells) (see Fig. 8), the support structure comprising:
a first support module and a second support module (see the first support module and the second support module) coupled to one another (see Fig. 8 attached below), the first support module and the second support module each comprising a truss (see the truss including the frame fixing parts 80) (see Fig. 8 attached below) including a first plurality of beams defining a planar back layer (see the beams of the upper frame fixing parts defining a planar back layer) and a second plurality of beams extending from the planar back layer (see the beams of the lower frame fixing parts extending from the planar back layer) (see Fig. 8 attached below) and a plate engaged with the second plurality of beams (see the plate with the solar cells 100, which is engaged with the beams of the lower frame fixing parts via the beams of the upper frame fixing parts) (see Fig. 8 attached below), the plates of the first support module and the second support module including a plurality of polygonal panels (see the plurality of triangle panels) and a coupling hook (see the Velcro tape) configured to engage an adjacent plate ([0032] the solar cell (100) is fixedly attached using a Velcro tape, which engage an adjacent plate with the solar cells) (see Fig. 8 attached below), the plurality of polygonal panels arranged such that the plate has a non-planar surface (see the non-planar surface of the plates) (see Fig. 8 attached below),
wherein each polygonal panel of the plurality of polygonal panels of the plates of the first support module and the second support module is configured to support at least one solar cell of the plurality of solar cells (Since each of the plurality of triangle panels comprise the plurality of solar cells, each of the plurality of triangle panels supports the plurality of solar cells) (see Fig. 8 attached below).
PNG
media_image2.png
630
980
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 9.
Modified LEE teaches each of the first support module and the second support module further comprises a connector configured to couple two or more of the first plurality of beams included in the respective support module (see the upper hub in the first support module and the second support module which couple the beams of the upper frame fixing parts for the first support module and the beams of the upper frame fixing parts for the second support module) (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 9); and the connector of each of the first support module and the second support module is configured to engage the connector of the other of the first support module and the second support module (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 9).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (KR 20130088106 A, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of SWEET, Jr. (US 4834126).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed “each beam of the first plurality of beams and the second plurality of beams is composed of an elastic material and a dampening material periodically disposed within the elastic material”, LEE teaches each beam of the first plurality of beams and the second plurality of beams (see each beam of the beams of the upper frame fixing parts and the beams of the lower frame fixing parts), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “an elastic material and a dampening material periodically disposed within the elastic material”. However, SWEET, Jr. discloses a fiber glass umbrella construction, wherein the ribs 14 and struts 26 are fabricated of a fiber glass involving fiber glass strands embedded in a polyester resin (see C4/L45-L47 and Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the fiber glass material involving fiber glass strands embedded in a polyester resin for the beams of the upper frame fixing parts and the beams of the lower frame fixing parts in LEE as taught by SWEET, Jr., because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144). Therefore, modified LEE teaches each beam of the first plurality of beams and the second plurality of beams comprises an elastic material (see the fiber glass, which has elastic property) and a dampening material periodically disposed within the elastic material (The polyester resin has dampening property and the polyester resin is disposed among the fibers of the fiber glass, which teaches fiber/polyester/fiber/polyester/fiber…).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
Modified LEE teaches the dampening material is viscoelastic (The polyester is viscoelastic).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
Regarding the claimed “wherein each beam of the first plurality of beams and the second plurality of beams includes a hollow section”, LEE teaches each beam of the plurality of beams (see each beam of the beams of the upper frame fixing parts and the beams of the lower frame fixing parts) (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 1), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “hollow section”. However, SWEET, Jr. discloses a fiber glass umbrella construction, wherein Nylon fixtures are employed for pivotally receiving the proximal ends of the struts and ribs with respect to the central rod (see Abstract and Fig. 2), wherein the Nylon fixtures have hollow section (see Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Nylon fixtures for the beams of the beams of the upper frame fixing parts and the beams of the lower frame fixing parts in LEE as taught by SWEET, Jr., because the Nylon fixtures provides pivotal connection of the proximal ends of the upper frame fixing parts and the lower frame fixing parts to the central rod.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (KR 20130088106 A, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of VOLIN (US 10653218 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
LEE teaches the plate includes a front side and a back side opposite the front side (see the front side and the back side of the plate, which is opposite the front side) (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 1); the non-planar surface is disposed on the front side (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 1). Regarding the claimed “the back side includes a plurality of sockets configured to engage the truss”, VOLIN discloses an umbrella, wherein Figs. 1k and 3 shows the foldable rib joints 105 wherein the lower ribs 103b are inserted into the foldable rib joints 105 and the foldable rib joints 105 can pivotably secure upper ribs 103 a to lower ribs 103 b to allow upper ribs 103 a and lower ribs 103 b to fold and to deploy (see C19/L1-L12, and Figs. 1k and 3). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the foldable rib joints between the upper frame fixing parts and the lower frame fixing parts in LEE as taught by VOLIN because the foldable rib joints can pivotably secure the upper frame fixing parts to the lower frame fixing parts to allow the upper frame fixing parts and the lower frame fixing parts to fold and to deploy, and because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima face obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.). Therefore, modified LEE teaches the back side includes a plurality of sockets configured to engage the truss (see the plurality of foldable rib joints configured to engage the truss) (see the discussion above).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 5.
Modified LEE teaches each socket of the plurality of sockets (see each of the foldable rib joints) is configured to receive a respective one of the second plurality of beams for coupling the plate to the truss (Each of the foldable rib joints has this function) (see the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
LEE teaches the truss further comprises a connector configured to couple two or more of the first plurality of beams (see the upper hub which couples the beams of the upper frame fixing parts) (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (KR 20130088106 A, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of BEAULIEU (US 8443819 B2).
Regarding the claimed limitations required by claim 5 on which claim 8 depends,
LEE teaches the plate includes a front side and a back side opposite the front side (see the front side and the back side of the plate, which is opposite the front side) (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 1); the non-planar surface is disposed on the front side (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 1). Regarding the claimed “the back side includes a plurality of sockets configured to engage the truss”, BEAULIEU discloses an umbrella support assembly, wherein Figs. 1-2, 25-27 shows fabric connectors 600, which is socket shaped, wherein twists and rotations of the fabric (120) are compensated by rotation of the fabric connector (600) about the rotation junction (105) between fabric connector (600) and the upper rib (104) thereby allowing the fabric connector head (620) to contact the maximum amount of fabric (120) across the fabric connector surfaces (621, 622, 623, 624) and spread the tension forces across the multiple connector surfaces of the fabric connector (600) which reduces the likelihood the fabric connector (600) will penetrate into the fabric (120) and cause fabric tears and rips (C8/L64 – C9/L9). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the fabric connectors for the upper frame fixing parts in LEE as taught by BEAULIEU, because the fabric connectors contact the fabric with the maximum amount of the fabric and spread the tension forces across the multiple connector surfaces of the fabric connector which reduces the likelihood the fabric connector will penetrate into the fabric and cause fabric tears and rips. Therefore, modified LEE teaches the back side includes a plurality of sockets configured to engage the truss (see the fabric connectors which engage the upper frame fixing parts) (see the discussion above).
Regarding the claim 8, modified LEE teaches the plate has a polygonal perimeter that defines a plurality of corners of the plate (see the polygonal perimeter of the plate with the solar cells 100, which defines a plurality of corners of the plate) (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 1); and each socket of the plurality of sockets is disposed on the back side of the plate at a respective one of the corners (see the discussion above and Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (KR 20130088106 A, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of VOLIN (US 10653218 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 9.
LEE teaches the plate includes a front side and a back side opposite the front side (see the front side and the back side of the plate, which is opposite the front side) (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 9); the non-planar surface is disposed on the front side (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejection of claim 9). Regarding the claimed “the back side includes a plurality of sockets configured to engage the truss”, VOLIN discloses an umbrella, wherein Figs. 1k and 3 shows the foldable rib joints 105 wherein the lower ribs 103b are inserted into the foldable rib joints 105 and the foldable rib joints 105 can pivotably secure upper ribs 103 a to lower ribs 103 b to allow upper ribs 103 a and lower ribs 103 b to fold and to deploy (see C19/L1-L12, and Figs. 1k and 3). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the foldable rib joints between the upper frame fixing parts and the lower frame fixing parts in LEE as taught by VOLIN, because the foldable rib joints can pivotably secure the upper frame fixing parts to the lower frame fixing parts to allow the upper frame fixing parts and the lower frame fixing parts to fold and to deploy, and because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima face obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.). Therefore, modified LEE teaches the back side includes a plurality of sockets configured to engage the truss (see the plurality of foldable rib joints configured to engage the truss) (see the discussion above).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (KR 20130088106 A, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of SWEET, Jr. (US 4834126).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 9.
Regarding the claimed “each beam of the first plurality of beams is composed of an elastic material and a dampening material periodically disposed within the elastic material”, LEE teaches each beam of the plurality of beams (see each beam of the plurality of beams of the upper frame fixing parts and the lower frame fixing parts), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “an elastic material and a dampening material periodically disposed within the elastic material”. However, SWEET, Jr. discloses a fiber glass umbrella construction, wherein the ribs 14 and struts 26 are fabricated of a fiber glass involving fiber glass strands embedded in a polyester resin (see C4/L45-L47 and Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the fiber glass material involving fiber glass strands embedded in a polyester resin for the beams of the upper frame fixing parts and the lower frame fixing parts in LEE as taught by SWEET, Jr., because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144). Therefore, modified LEE teaches each beam of the first plurality of beams is composed of an elastic material (see the fiber glass, which has elastic property) and a dampening material periodically disposed within the elastic material (The polyester resin has dampening property and the polyester resin is disposed among the fibers of the fiber glass, which teaches fiber/polyester/fiber/polyester/fiber…).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that the prior art does not teach or suggest the new limitation in the amended claims 1 and 9, is not persuasive.
LEE teaches a first plurality of beams defining a planar back layer (see the beams of the upper frame fixing parts defining a planar back layer) and a second plurality of beams extending from the planar back layer (see the beams of the lower frame fixing parts extending from the planar back layer) (see Fig. 8 attached in the rejections of claims 1 and 9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified and/or new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights