DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action in response to the RCE filed 08/06/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 16, 17, and 19-26 are pending;
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 16, and 17 are currently amended; claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 11-15, and 18 have been cancelled; claims 19-26 are new;
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 16, 17, and 19-26 are rejected herein.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed 08/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth below in the current Office action.
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 feature "a base member in a horizontal plane" (claim 23, line 7) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings fail to show "a horizontal plane" as claimed.
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
Claims 3, 7, 19, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2, "the rails" appears to be --the two rails--.
Claim 7, line 3, "the flange members" appears to be --the flanges--.
Claim 7, lines 4 and 5, "the at two rails" appears to be --the two rails--.
Claim 19, line 2, "the rails" appears to be --the two rails--.
Claim 21, line 2, "including" appears to be --include--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, there is no support in the original disclosure of the present application for the following limitations: "a base member in a horizontal plane" (claim 23, line 7). As best understood, "the roof mount component 3010 extends in a substantially horizontal plane" (specification, paragraph 00052). Nowhere in the original disclosure states or shows "a base member in a horizontal plane" as claimed. Therefore, the limitations "a base member in a horizontal plane" (claim 23, line 7) are considered as new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 24-26 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 16, 17, and 19-26 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the "roof" is positively recited in the body of claim 1, "the roof mount component mounts the splice foot connector to the roof" in lines 10 and 11, as a required structure within the scope of claim 1, since the language "mounts" introduces positive recitation(s) thereafter in the instant case. However, the "roof" is functionally recited in the preamble of claim 1, "A photovoltaic array rail mounting system for use on a roof" in line 1, as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 1. The positive recitation of the "roof" in the body of claim 1, following the functional recitation of the "roof" in the preamble of claim 1, renders the scope of claim 1 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 1 is directed to a combination of the "photovoltaic array rail mounting system" and the "roof" or directed to the "photovoltaic array rail mounting system" adapted to be used with the "roof." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in the preamble of claim 1 or properly place the "roof" in intended use consistently throughout claim 1. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitation of the "roof" in the body of claim 1 (lines 10 and 11), the Examiner considers claim 1 to be directed to a combination of the "photovoltaic array rail mounting system" and the "roof." Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, the "roof" and the components thereof (i.e., the "rafters") are positively recited in the body of claim 19, "wherein the span-length of the rails is determined by a distance of rafters of the roof on which the system is mounted" in lines 1 and 2, as required structures within the scope of claim 19, since the language "is determined by" introduces positive recitation(s) thereafter in the instant case. However, the "roof" is functionally recited in the preamble of claim 1, "A photovoltaic array rail mounting system for use on a roof" in line 1, as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 1. The positive recitation of the "roof" and the components thereof (i.e., the "rafters") in the body of claim 19, requiring the functional recitation of the "roof" in the preamble of claim 1, renders the scope of claim 19 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 19 is directed to a combination of the "photovoltaic array rail mounting system" and the "roof" or directed to the "photovoltaic array rail mounting system" adapted to be used with the "roof." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in the preamble of claim 19 or properly place the "roof" and the components thereof (i.e., the "rafters") thereof in intended use consistently throughout claim 19. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitation of the "roof" and the components thereof (i.e., the "rafters") in the body of claim 19 (lines 1 and 2), the Examiner considers claim 19 to be directed to a combination of the "photovoltaic array rail mounting system" and the "roof." Similar rejection and similar interpretation apply to the limitations "wherein the splice foot connector comprises three splice foot connectors spaced out and mounted on the roof at the rafters" in claim 20 (lines 1-3, where the "roof" and the "rafters" of the "roof" are further positively recited in the body of claim 20 and further considered as required structures within the scope of claim 20). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the span-length" (line 1) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation "a distance of rafters" in line 2 is indefinite. It is not clear as to what distance is being recited. What does it mean by "a distance of rafters" as claimed? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations "wherein the splice foot connector comprises three splice foot connectors spaced out and mounted on the roof at the rafters" in lines 1-3 are indefinite. It is not clear as to how the "splice foot connector" (i.e., one splice foot connector) can possibly comprise "three splice foot connectors" as claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the first splice foot connector" (line 3) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the first rail" (line 3) in the claim. Also, do the "two rails" in claim 1 (line 3) comprise the "first rail" in claim 20 (line 3)? Or does claim 20 require the "first rail" in claim 20 (line 3) in addition to the "two rails" in claim 1 (line 3)? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the second splice foot connector" (lines 3 and 4) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the second end" (line 4) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the first end" (line 4) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the second rail" (line 4) in the claim. Also, do the "two rails" in claim 1 (line 3) comprise the "second rail" in claim 20 (line 4)? Or does claim 20 require the "second rail" in claim 20 (line 4) in addition to the "two rails" in claim 1 (line 3)? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the third splice foot connector" (line 5) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the second end" (line 5) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 23, the "roof" is positively recited in the body of claim 23, "the roof mount component connects the splice foot connector to the roof" in lines 17 and 18, as a required structure within the scope of claim 23, since the language "connects" introduces positive recitation(s) thereafter in the instant case. However, the "roof" is functionally recited in the preamble of claim 23, "A photovoltaic array rail mounting system for use on a roof" in line 1, as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 23. The positive recitation of the "roof" in the body of claim 23, following the functional recitation of the "roof" in the preamble of claim 23, renders the scope of claim 23 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 23 is directed to a combination of the "photovoltaic array rail mounting system" and the "roof" or directed to the "photovoltaic array rail mounting system" adapted to be used with the "roof." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in the preamble of claim 23 or properly place the "roof" in intended use consistently throughout claim 23. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitation of the "roof" in the body of claim 23 (lines 17 and 18), the Examiner considers claim 23 to be directed to a combination of the "photovoltaic array rail mounting system" and the "roof." Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 5-7, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 24-26 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 16, and 17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truthseeker (US 10,447,197 B2) in view of Young et al. (US 10,951,157 B1), hereinafter Young.
Regarding claim 1, Truthseeker discloses a photovoltaic array rail mounting system (see Figure 15, see col 11, lines 26-62, col 13, lines 14-24, the photovoltaic array rail mounting system including the mount 232 in the "rafter attachment" configuration for installation of the PV modules) for use on a roof (102, fig 6, also see Figures 13-15, see col 11, lines 26-62), the system comprising: a foot connector (232, fig 15), wherein the foot connector serves as a mounting bracket (232, fig 15), wherein the foot connector comprises a roof mount component (2320, fig 15, see annotation, the horizontal component of the mount 232) and only one rail mount component (2321, fig 15, see annotation, the vertical component of the mount 232) integrally formed with the roof mount component (see Figure 15) and creating a substantially 90-degree angle between the roof mount component and the rail mount component (see Figure 15), wherein the roof mount component mounts the foot connector to the roof (see Figure 15, see col 11, lines 26-62, with the mount 232 in the "rafter attachment" configuration, the roof mount component 2320 mounts the mount 232 to a rafter of the roof).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2320 – Roof Mount Component)][AltContent: textbox (2322 – Aperture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2321 – Rail Mount Component)]
PNG
media_image1.png
412
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
Truthseeker is silent as to whether or not the photovoltaic array rail mounting system (i.e., the photovoltaic array rail mounting system including the mount 232 in the "rafter attachment" configuration as shown in Figure 15) comprises a rail configured to support a photovoltaic array, wherein the foot connector is configured to support and connect the rail.
Truthseeker teaches an alternative photovoltaic array rail mounting system (104, 282, 284, fig 6) for use on a roof (102, fig 6), the system comprising: a rail (282, fig 6) configured to support a photovoltaic array (286, fig 6); and a foot connector (104, fig 6) configured to support and connect the rail (see Figure 6, see col 4, lines 51-61).
PNG
media_image2.png
502
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Truthseeker is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect a rail (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6) to the foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15) by a fastener (Truthseeker: 284, fig 6), with the rail configured to support a photovoltaic array (Truthseeker: 286, fig 6) and with the foot connector configured to support and connect the rail (Truthseeker: see Figure 6, see col 4, lines 51-61), as taught by Truthseeker, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow one or more PV modules (Truthseeker: 286, fig 6) to be positioned at a preferred height by vertically adjusting the rail (Truthseeker 282: fig 6) with respect to the foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15) and/or to provide convenient installation of the one or more PV modules (Truthseeker: 286, fig 6) with the rail (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6).
Truthseeker, as modified above, does not teach the photovoltaic array rail mounting system, wherein the system comprises two rails configured to support a photovoltaic array; wherein the foot connector is a splice foot connector configured to support and connect the two rails, wherein the splice foot connector serves as both a mounting bracket and a splice for the two rails, wherein the rail mount component splices the two rails directly to the splice foot connector.
Young teaches a photovoltaic array rail mounting system (10, fig 10) for use on a roof (60, fig 6), the system comprising: two rails (30, 30A, fig 10) configured to support a photovoltaic array (see Figure 6); and a splice foot connector (12, fig 10) configured to support and connect the two rails (see Figures 9 and 10), wherein the splice foot connector serves as both a mounting bracket and a splice for the two rails (see Figures 9 and 10), wherein the splice foot connector comprises a rail mount component (16, fig 10), wherein the rail mount component comprises a plurality of apertures (15, 19, fig 10) splicing the two rails directly to splice foot connector (see Figures 9 and 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
489
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Young is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the rail mount component (Truthseeker: 2321, fig 15, see annotation) of the foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15) with an additional aperture (Truthseeker: 2322, fig 15, see annotation, the vertically elongated aperture) and attach an additional rail (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6) to the rail mount component of the foot connector via an additional fastener (Truthseeker: 284, fig 6) and the additional aperture, such that the foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15) is formed as a splice foot connector configured to support and connect two rails (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6; Young: see Figures 9 and 10), with the two rails configured to support a photovoltaic array (Young: see Figure 6), with the splice foot connector serving as both a mounting bracket and a splice for the two rails (Young: see Figures 9 and 10), and with the rail mount component splicing the two rails directly to the splice foot connector (Young: see Figures 9 and 10), as taught by Young, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to also allow rails of shorter lengths to be used with the foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15), as clearly illustrated in Figures of 1 and 9 of Young, for ease of storage, transport, and handling of the rails. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Truthseeker and Young to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Accordingly, Truthseeker, as modified by Young with respect to claim 1, teaches a photovoltaic array rail mounting system (Truthseeker: see Figure 15, see col 11, lines 26-62, col 13, lines 14-24, the photovoltaic array rail mounting system including the mount 232 in the "rafter attachment" configuration for installation of the PV modules; Young: 10, fig 15) for use on a roof (Truthseeker: 102, fig 6, also see Figures 13-15, see col 11, lines 26-62), the system comprising: two rails (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6, as modified to include an additional rail 282; Young: 30, 30A, fig 10) configured to support a photovoltaic array (Truthseeker: 286, fig 6; Young: see Figure 6); and a splice foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322) configured to support and connect the two rails (Truthseeker: see Figure 6; Young: see Figures 9 and 10), wherein the splice foot connector serves as both a mounting bracket and a splice for the two rails (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15; Young: see Figures 9 and 10), wherein the splice foot connector comprises a roof mount component (Truthseeker: 2320, fig 15, see annotation, the horizontal component of the mount 232) and only one rail mount component (Truthseeker: 2321, fig 15, see annotation, the vertical component of the mount 232) integrally formed with the roof mount component (Truthseeker: see Figure 15) and creating a substantially 90-degree angle between the roof mount component and the rail mount component (Truthseeker: see Figure 15), wherein the rail mount component splices the two rails directly to the splice foot connector (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15; Young: see Figures 9 and 10) and the roof mount component mounts the splice foot connector to the roof (Truthseeker: see Figure 15, see col 11, lines 26-62, with the mount 232 in the "rafter attachment" configuration, the roof mount component 2320 mounts the mount 232 to a rafter of the roof).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the rails are span-length rails (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15; Young: see Figures 9 and 10), wherein the splice foot connector is further configured to receive the span-length rails to support the photovoltaic array (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15; Young: see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the rail mount component is vertically oriented in relation to the roof mount component (Truthseeker: see Figure 15) and comprises a plurality of apertures (Truthseeker: 2322, fig 14, see annotation, the vertically elongated aperture 2322, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322; Young: see Figure 10), wherein the plurality of apertures allows connection to the two rails (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15; Young: see Figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the plurality of apertures comprises elongated apertures (Truthseeker: 2322, fig 14, see annotation, the vertically elongated aperture 2322, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322; Young: see Figure 10) to allow for adjustable rail mounting of the two rails (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15; Young: see Figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the splice foot connector is configured to be mounted on a tile replacement (Truthseeker: see Figures 13-15).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the splice foot connector is further configured to support the two rails end to end (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15; Young: see Figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the rail mount component is a single wall (Truthseeker: 2321, fig 15, see annotation, the vertical component of the mount 232) that includes a plurality of apertures (Truthseeker: 2322, fig 14, see annotation, the vertically elongated aperture 2322, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322; Young: see Figure 10) to allow direct connections of the two rails to the rail mount component (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15; Young: see Figure 6).
Claims 7 and 21-26, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truthseeker (US 10,447,197 B2) in view of Young et al. (US 10,951,157 B1), hereinafter Young, and Belschner et al. (EP 2474796 A1)1, hereinafter Belschner.
Regarding claim 7, Truthseeker, as modified by Young with respect to claim 1, teaches the photovoltaic array rail mounting system, wherein the roof mount component further comprises a base member (Truthseeker: 2323, fig 15, see annotation, the center member of the roof mount component 2320) and flanges (Truthseeker: 2324, 2335, fig 15, see annotation, the flanges of the roof mount component 2320) extending horizontally from the base member (Truthseeker: see Figure 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2324 – Flange)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (2323 – Base Member)]
[AltContent: textbox (2325 – Flange)]
Truthseeker, as modified by Young with respect to claim 1, does not teach the photovoltaic array rail mounting system, wherein the base member is thicker than the flange members and provides horizontal support for the two rails
Belschner teaches a photovoltaic array rail mounting system (see Figure 1, see translation, lines 491-493, the photovoltaic array rail mounting system including the roof hook 1 and the mounting rails as described in lines 491-493 of the translation) for use on a roof (see Figure 1, see translation, lines 288-290), the system comprising: at least one rail (see translation, lines 491-493, the mounting rails); and a foot connector (2, fig 1) configured to support the at least one rail (see Figure 1, see translation, lines 288-295 and 491-493), wherein the foot connector comprises a roof mount component (7, fig 2) and a rail mount component (9, fig 2) forming a substantially 90-degree angle with one another (see Figure 2), wherein the roof mount component comprises a base member (7c, fig 2, see translation, lines 319-327) and a flange (7a, fig 2) extending horizontally from the base member (see Figure 2), wherein the base member is thicker than the flange and provides horizontal support for the at least one rail (see Figure 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
708
672
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Belschner is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the base member (Truthseeker: 2323, fig 15, see annotation) of the roof mount component (Truthseeker: 2320, fig 15, see annotation) outward and with a thickness greater than the thicknesses of the flanges (Truthseeker: 2324, 2325, fig 15, see annotation) to provide horizontal support for the two rails (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6, as modified to include an additional rail 282; Belschner: see Figure 2 and 3a), as taught by Belschner, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to provide horizontal support to the two rails (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6, as modified to include an additional rail 282) when the two rails are vertically adjusted to a position in contact with the roof mount component (Truthseeker: 2320, fig 15, see annotation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Truthseeker, Young, with Belschner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 21, wherein the flanges including a plurality of apertures (Truthseeker: 234, 236, fig 14) configured to receive fasteners (Truthseeker: 110, fig 14, also see Figure 15) to secure the roof mount component to a rafter of the roof (Truthseeker: see Figure 15, see col 11, lines 26-62), wherein the plurality of apertures has an orientation along the flanges to allow for three mounting positions on the rafter of the roof (Truthseeker: see Figures 14 and 15, see col 11, lines 26-62).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the roof mount component and the rail mount component form an inverted T-shape (Truthseeker: see Figure 15).
Regarding claim 23, Truthseeker, as modified by Young and Belschner (see above discussion with respect to claims 1 and 7), teaches a photovoltaic array rail mounting system (Truthseeker: see Figure 15, see col 11, lines 26-62, col 13, lines 14-24, the photovoltaic array rail mounting system including the mount 232 in the "rafter attachment" configuration for installation of the PV modules; Young: 10, fig 15) for use on a roof (Truthseeker: 102, fig 6, also see Figures 13-15, see col 11, lines 26-62), the system comprising: two rails (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6, as modified to include an additional rail 282; Young: 30, 30A, fig 10) configured to support a photovoltaic array (Truthseeker: 286, fig 6; Young: see Figure 6); and a splice foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322) for splicing the two rails together and mounting the two rails to the roof (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15; Young: see Figures 9 and 10), the splice foot connector consisting of: a roof mount component (Truthseeker: 2320, fig 15, see annotation, the horizontal component of the mount 232) comprising: a base member (Truthseeker: 2323, fig 15, see annotation, the center member of the roof mount component 2320, as modified to be thicker and outward by, Belschner: 7c, fig 2, see translation, lines 319-327) in a horizontal plane; and flanges (Truthseeker: 2324, 2335, fig 15, see annotation, the flanges of the roof mount component 2320) extending horizontally from edges of the base member (Truthseeker: see Figure 15; Belschner: see Figure 2), wherein the base member has a thickness larger than thicknesses of the flanges (Truthseeker: see Figure 15; Belschner: see Figure 2); and a rail mount component (Truthseeker: 2321, fig 15, see annotation, the vertical component of the mount 232) comprising two apertures (Truthseeker: 2322, fig 14, see annotation, the vertically elongated aperture 2322, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322; Young: see Figure 10), wherein the rail mount component is integrally formed with the roof mount component, extending vertically from the base member to form a substantially 90-degree angle (Truthseeker: see Figure 15), and fasteners (Truthseeker: 284, fig 6, as modified to include an additional fastener 284; Young: see Figure 10); wherein the rail mount component directly splices the two rails together end to end through the two apertures and the fasteners to the splice foot connector (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15, Young: see Figures 9 and 10), and the roof mount component connects the splice foot connector to the roof (Truthseeker: see Figure 15, see col 11, lines 26-62, with the mount 232 in the "rafter attachment" configuration, the roof mount component 2320 mounts the mount 232 to a rafter of the roof).
Regarding claim 24, wherein the roof mount component and the rail mount component form an inverted T-shape (Truthseeker: see Figure 15).
Regarding claim 25, wherein each of the flanges includes a plurality of flange apertures (Truthseeker: 234, 236, fig 14).
Regarding claim 26, wherein the two apertures of the rail mount component are elongated apertures to allow for adjustable rail mounting of the two rails end to end with one another (Truthseeker: see Figures 6 and 15, Young: see Figures 9 and 10).
Claims 19 and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truthseeker (US 10,447,197 B2) in view of Young et al. (US 10,951,157 B1), hereinafter Young, and Ullman (US 6,360,491 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Truthseeker, as modified by Young with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the photovoltaic array rail mounting system, wherein the span-length of the rails is determined by a distance of rafters of the roof on which the system is mounted.
Ullman teaches a photovoltaic array rail mounting system (see Figure 14) for use on a roof (col 4, line 56), the system comprising: a rail (54, fig 10); and a plurality of foot connectors (10, fig 7), wherein a span-length of the rail is determined by a distance of rafters (14, fig 10) of the roof on which the system is mounted (see Figure 10).
PNG
media_image5.png
530
878
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ullman is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the span-length of the rails (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6, as modified to include an additional rail 282; Young: 30, 30A, fig 10) by a distance of rafters (Ullman: 14, fig 10) of the roof (Ullman: col 4, line 56) on which the system is mounted, as taught by Ullman, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to provide the two rails (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6, as modified to include an additional rail 282) with appropriate lengths to be used in installation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Truthseeker, Young, with Ullman to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Truthseeker, as modified by Young with respect to claim 19, does not teach the photovoltaic array rail mounting system, wherein the splice foot connector comprises three splice foot connectors spaced out and mounted on the roof at the rafters, wherein the first splice foot connector supports a first end of the first rail, the second splice foot connector supports the second end of the first rail and the first end of the second rail, and the third splice foot connector supports the second end of the second rail.
Ullman teaches a photovoltaic array rail mounting system (see Figure 14) for use on a roof (col 4, line 56), the system comprising: a rail (54, fig 10); and three foot connectors (10, fig 7) spaced out and mounted on the roof at rafters (14, fig 10) of the roof (see Figures 5 and 10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide three splice foot connectors (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322) spaced out and mounted on the roof at the rafters (Ullman: 14, fig 10), as taught by Ullman, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to support a photovoltaic array of an appropriate size, as indicated in Figure14 of Ullman. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the two rails (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6, as modified to include an additional rail 282; Young: 30, 30A, fig 10), such that the first splice foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322) supports a first end of the first rail (Truthseeker: see Figure 6), the second splice foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322) supports the second end of the first rail and the first end of the second rail (Young: see Figures 9 and 10), and the third splice foot connector (Truthseeker: 232, fig 15, as modified to include an additional aperture 2322) supports the second end of the second rail (Truthseeker: see Figure 6), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation would have been to properly support the two rails (Truthseeker: 282, fig 6, as modified to include an additional rail 282; Young: 30, 30A, fig 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Truthseeker, Young, and Ullman to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
1 A copy of Belschner, including a translation, was attached to the Office action mailed 02/06/2025.