1723470Notice 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 1-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-22 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/18/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 03/18/2025
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson (PG pub 20160226434), and in view of Stearns et al (PG Pub 20150288320) and Sawafta et al (PG pub 20130199755)
Regarding claim 1, Tomlinson teaches a system for installation on a sloped surface, comprising:
a geomembrane 10 for overlaying on a sloped surface [fig 7-9 para 129]; and
a pair of assembly, each one of the mounting assemblies comprising:
an elongate flexible strips 120 or 124 having base plate defining an upper surface and opposing bottom surface [standoff mount 102 bonded to tape carrier 120 comprising parallel strip attached to membrane 10 where the strip 120 or 124 would be attached to the geomembrane 10 by fastener [fig 11A-C para 131 135];
a rails (104), each elongate rail fixedly secured with the base on the upper surface of a respective one of the flexible strips with a plurality of fasteners (112, 114) spaced-apart and connecting the elongate rail to the respective flexible strip [fig 7-9];
a plurality of the fasteners 138 for securing the at least one solar photovoltaic module in fixed relation to the opposing elongate rails [fig 7 para 137],
an attachment 116 for acting securely between the bottom surface of the flexible strip and the geomembrane [fig 10 para 132]
the pair of mounting assemblies are disposed onto the geosynthetic in spaced-apart parallel relation with the anti-creep projections received within the tufts [fig 7]
at least one solar photovoltaic module 100 attached with a plurality of the fasteners 138 to the elongate rail of each of the mounting assemblies for securing the at least one solar photovoltaic module in fixed vertically spaced relation to the geomembrane [fig 7 para 137]
Tomlinson teaches the flexible strip, but Tomlinson does not teach flexible strip being elongated.
Tomlinson teach the flexible strip being in variety shape [para 131].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the flexible strip to be elongated shaped since such a shape for the structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed item was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Tomlinson teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but Tomlinson does not teach the rails having structure as claimed.
Stearns et al teaches a PV system comprising rail having base, opposing top and opposing side walls therebetween and plurality of fasteners for securing the PV panel to opposing top of pair of elongated rails [fig 3-4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the rails and fasteners of Tomlinson by the rails and fasteners system of Stearns et al since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Modified Tomlinson teaches the elongated base plate being bond to the geomembrane or roofing surface by fastener [para 34, 35 135], it is considered that fasteners is anti-creep projections extending in a direction from a surface thereof [fig 7and 12]
Modified Tomlinson teaches a geomembrane 10 as set forth above, but modified Tomlinson does not teach the sheet including tuft geosyntheric cover as claimed.
Sawafta et al teaches tuft mat comprising a geosynthetic having a plurality of tufts of a synthetic yarn extending therefrom as blades of simulated grass [para 43 44 77] where tufted geosynthetic having a woven backing [para 10]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the geomembrane of modified Tomlinson to be include artificial tuft as taught by Sawafte et al for eliminate heat transfer and improving friction [para 77].
As for combination, the anti-creep projects frictionally engage within the tuffs for securing the base plate to the polymeric substrate and resist wind uplift. Also, the pair of assemblies, each having the elongate flexible strips being secured to the elongate rails and disposed onto the geosynthetic in spaced-apart parallel relation, support the at least one solar photovoltaic module attached with fasteners to the opposing elongate rails while the anti-creep projection friction engage the turf resisting sliding movement of the fixedly attached pair of assemblies of the elongate rails and attaching strips relative to the geosynthetic and resisting wind uplift [fig 7].
Regarding claim 2, modified Tomlinson teaches each of the pair of elongate rails comprises a U-channel in which the top is defined by each of the opposing side walls side wall with a free distal end and a lip projecting towards the lip of the an opposing distal end to define an elongated rail slot having a width therebetween: and wherein each of the plurality of fasteners comprises a plate 104 having a threaded shaft 102 extending therefrom, the plate for being received between the side walls with the threaded shaft extending through the elongated rail slot for receiving a nut 108 thereon for securing the plate in bearing contact with the lips [fig 3 4, Stearns et al].
Regarding claim 3, modified Tomlinson teaches each of the plurality of fasteners comprises fastener comprising a plate having a threaded shaft extending therefrom for receiving the plate between the opposing side walls and the shaft for rotating to drive opposing ends of the plate into contact with the lips of the opposing side walls, the threaded shaft for extending through an opening in the top and an aligned opening in a bracket of the solar photovoltaic module and being secured with a nut thereon [fig 3 4, Stearns et al].
Regarding claim 5, modified Tomlinson teaches at least one ballast tray having opposing ends for attaching to the pair of elongate rails and a tray surface for supporting a ballast thereon, the ballast tray positioned on the opposing rails prior to attaching the solar photovoltaic module to the rails in overlying relation [fig 13 15 para 26-27, Tomlinson].
Regarding claim 6, Modified Tomlinson teaches the geosynthetic and the pair of elongate flexible strips are made of a synthetic material and welding together [para 37 131, Tomlinson].
The recitation “for heat welding” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Tomlinson teaches the sloped surface comprises a protected membrane roof; and further comprising an adhesive for securely attaching the geomembrane to the sloped surface [para 129 132, Tomlinson].
Regarding claim 9, modified Tomlinson teaches a pair of spacer (44,46) for attaching between at least one of the pair of elongate rails the rail and the solar photovoltaic module to define an air flow space between a bottom surface of the solar photovoltaic module and the geomembrane, whereby air flow therethrough reduces heat build-up in the solar photovoltaic module [fig 3-4, Stearns et al].
Regarding claim 10, modified Tomlinson teaches the spacer comprises a U-shaped channel having a base with at least one opening for receiving a fastener 112 for securing the spacer to the at least one elongate rail [fig 3-4, Stearns et al].
Regarding claim 11, Tomlinson teaches method of installing a PV module in sloped surface comprising:
providing a geomembrane sheet 10 that overlays a sloped surface [fig 7-11]; and
placing a mounting module on the geomembrane sheet [fig 7-11]
providing at least one solar photovoltaic module coupling in vertical spaced related o the geomembrane 10 with a plurality of fasteners in fixed relation to the module mount [fig 7-11],
characterized as
Assemblies a pair of mounting assemblies, each of the pair of mounting assemblies assembled of an elongated rail fastened to an attaching strip with a plurality of fasteners spaced-apart and connecting the elongate rail to the attaching strip, said elongate rail has a base, an opposing top, and opposing side walls therebetween and said attaching strip having an elongated base plate defining an upper surface and opposing bottom surface with a plurality of anti-creep projections extending from the bottom surface (the fastener to attached the strip to the sheet 10 (para 135), [fig 7-11];
(b) attaching the pair of elongate attaching strips in spaced-apart parallel relation with an attachment (fasterners) fixedly acting on the geomembrane [fig 7-11]; and
(c) positioning the pair of mounting assemblies of the attaching strips and the rail in spaced-apart parallel relation with the plurality of anti-creep projections acting on the geosynthetic
(d) attaching the at least one solar photovoltaic module with a plurality of the fasteners to the elongate rails of the pairs of assemblies
whereby each of the pair of elongate attaching strips being attached to the elongate rails and fixedly attached to the geomembrane in spaced-apart parallel relation, support the at least one solar photovoltaic module attached with the plurality of fasteners to the rails [para 145]] while resisting sliding movement relative to the geomembrane and resisting wind uplift.
Tomlinson teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but Tomlinson does not teach the rails having structure as claimed.
Stearns et al teaches a PV system comprising rail having base, opposing top and opposing side walls therebetween and a plurality of brackets (44, 102) being attached to the PV module and movably slidable on a respective rail [fig 5-6, Stearns].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the rails and fasteners of Tomlinson by the rails and fasteners system of Stearns et al since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Modified Tomlinson teaches the elongated base plate being bond to the geomembrane or roofing surface by fastener [para 34, 35 135], it is considered that fasteners is anti-creep projections extending in a direction from a surface thereof [fig 7and 12]
Modified Tomlinson teaches a geomembrane 10 as set forth above, but modified Tomlinson does not teach the sheet including tuft geosyntheric cover as claimed.
Sawafta et al teaches tuft mat comprising a geosynthetic having a plurality of tufts of a synthetic yarn extending therefrom as blades of simulated grass [para 43 44 77] where tufted geosynthetic having a woven backing [para 10]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the geomembrane of modified Tomlinson to be overlying artificial tuft as taught by Sawafte et al for eliminate heat transfer and improving friction [para 77].
As for combination, the anti-creep projects frictionally engage within the tuffs for securing the base plate to the polymeric substrate and resist wind uplift. Also, the pair of elongate flexible strips being secured to the elongate rails and disposed onto the geosynthetic in spaced-apart parallel relation, support the at least one solar photovoltaic module attached with fasteners to the elongate rails while the anti-creep projection friction engage the turf resisting sliding movement of the fixedly attached elongate rails and flexible strips relative to the geosynthetic and resisting wind uplift [fig 7].
Regarding claim 12, modified Tomlinson teaches each of the pair of elongate rails comprises a U-channel in which the top is defined by each of the opposing side walls side wall with a free distal end and a lip projecting towards the lip of the an opposing distal end to define an elongated rail slot having a width therebetween: and wherein each of the plurality of fasteners comprises a plate 104 having a threaded shaft 102 extending therefrom, the plate for being received between the side walls with the threaded shaft extending through the elongated rail slot for receiving a nut 108 thereon for securing the plate in bearing contact with the lips [fig 3 4, Stearns et al].
Regarding claim 14, modified Tomlinson teaches the base of the rail defines an opening; and securing the elongate rail to the flexible strip securing comprises receiving a plate of the fastener between the opposing side walls of the elongate rail and the plate being rotated the opposing ends of the plate contact the pair of opposing side walls, and a threaded shaft extending from the plate through the opening receiving a nut [fig 3-4, Stearns et al]
Regarding claim 17, modified Tomlinson teaches Tomlinson teaches the sloped surface comprises a protected membrane roof; and further comprising step of providing an adhesive for securely attaching the geomembrane to the sloped surface [para 129 132, Tomlinson].
Regarding claim 18, modified Tomlinson teaches a plurality of spacer (44,46) for attaching between at least one of the pair of elongate rails the rail and the solar photovoltaic module to define an air flow space between a bottom surface of the solar photovoltaic module and the geomembrane, whereby air flow therethrough reduces heat build-up in the solar photovoltaic module [fig 1-4, Stearns et al].
Regarding claim 19, modified Tomlinson teaches the polymeric substrate comprises a geomembrane; and further comprising an adhesive for securely attaching the geomembrane to a protected membrane roof [para 129 132, Tomlinson]. modified Tomlinson teaches the geomembrane and the pair of elongate flexible strips are made of a synthetic material [para 132, Tomlinson].
Regarding claim 20, modified Tomlinson teaches a plurality of brackets (44, 102) being attached to the PV module and movably slidable on a respective rail [fig 5-6, Stearns].
Regarding claim 21, modified Tomlinson teaches geomembrane 10 for overlying a ground surface and said tufted geosynthetic overlying the geomembrane.
Regarding claim 22, modified Tomlinson teaches overlying a ground surface with a geomembrane, and overlying the geomembrane with said geosynthetic.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson (PG pub 20160226434), and Stearns et al (PG Pub 20150288320) and further in view of Wildes et al (PG Pub 20160268958).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tomlinson teaches the plate as set forth above, but modified Tomlinson does not teach the width and length of plate as claimed.
Wildes et al teaches fasteners having plate 72 which has a selected width smaller than the width of the elongate rail slot and a length larger than the width of the elongate rail slot [fig 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the width and length of plate of modified Tomlinson to be the same of Wildes since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlinson (PG pub 20160226434), and Stearns et al (PG Pub 20150288320) and further in view of Rego et al (Pat No. 8307606).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Tomlinson teaches the geomembrane and the pair of elongate flexible strips are made of a synthetic material [para 132, Tomlinson] and welding together. However, modified Tomlinson does not teach the rail being attached to the strip by welding.
Rego et al teaches using heat welding for attaching frame member to each other (col 16 lines 22-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to heat welding the rail and flexible strips together since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
Sawafta does not describe, nor teach or suggest, applicant’s claimed frictional engagement of the anti-creep projections of the attaching strip of the pair of assemblies with tufts of the tufted mat and the examiner’s assertion as to “improved friction” is mere conjecture not supported by Sawafta [0077] that does not teach or describe friction but rather describes reflecting sunlight
The examiner respectfully disagrees. By modifying the geomembrane of modified Tomlinson to be include artificial tuft, it would make the geomembrane not having a smooth surface and it would improve the friction.
The proposed combination fails to arrive at applicant’s structure, nor does the proposed combination teach or suggest the claim limitations recited in amended claims 1 and 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Modified Tomlinson teach the claimed structure as set forth above; thus it would have the same functional purpose as instant invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726