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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 and 18-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Line 6 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the slot” should be --the elongate slot-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 7-8 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the PV panel lower surface” should be --the lower surface of the first PV panel-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 6: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the first joining rail body” should be --the body-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 11: Line 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the PV panel undersurface” should be --the respective undersurface-- for consistency and clarity of the claim language. Line 6 of the claim, it appears “the first and a second PV module” should be --the first and the second PV module-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 9 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the first joining rail longitudinal extent” should --the longitudinal extent of the first joining rail-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 10-12 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the pair of walls” should be --the pair of cantilevered walls-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 11 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a PV module” should be --a second PV module-- for consistency of the clam language. Line 14 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the joining rail” should be --the first joining rail-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 12: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the frame” should be --the frame of the third PV panel-- for consistency and clarity of the claim language. Line 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the pair of walls” should be --the pair of cantilevered walls-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 4-5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a third PV module” should be --the third PV module-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 15: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the first PV module frame” should be --the frame of the first PV module-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 6 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the third PV module frame” should be --the frame of the third PV module-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 18: Lines 8 and 10, it appears the limitation “the first wall” should be --the first cantilevered wall-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 22: Lines 7-8 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the pair of the first frame members” should be --the pair of first frame members-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 9 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the wall” should be --the first wall--. Line 9 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the slot” should be --the elongate slot of the one of the pair of first frame members-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 10 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the joining rail” should be --the first joining rail--. Lines 13-14 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a first second frame member” should be --a second frame member-- for consistency and clarity of the claim language. Lines 16-17 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the joining rail” should be --the first joining rail--. Line 17 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the first PV modules to” should be --the first PV modules and-- for consistency and clarity of the claim language.
With regard to claim 23: Lines 3, 5 and 7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a second PV module” should be --the second PV module-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 6, 9, 10, 11 and 16 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the first joining rail” should be --the elongate first joining rail-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a first PV module” should be --the first PV module-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 8-9, 11 and 12, it appears each instance of the limitation “the first and second PV modules” should be --the first and the second PV modules-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 12 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the position” should be --the securing position-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 14 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the frame” should be --the frame of the third PV module-- for consistency and clarity of the claim language. Line 15 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a third PV module” should be --the third PV module-- for consistency of the claim language.
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 1-9 and 22-23 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.
With regard to claim 1: Line 11 and 13 of the claim, it appears that each instance of the limitation “the first frame member” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the one of the pair of the first frame members--.
With regard to claim 3: Line 3 of the claim, the limitation “the first frame member first leg” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --each leg--.
With regard to claims 4-5: Line 2-3 of each claim, each instance of the limitation “the edges” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 22: Line 16 of the claim, the limitation “the first member” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to –the other of the pair of first frame members--.
With regard to claim 23: Line 10 of the claim, the limitation “the frame” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to –the frames--. Note that each of the first PV module and the second PV module comprise a frame.
Claims 1-9 and 22-23 are examined as best understood.
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) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West (US 7,592,537 B1).
With regard to claim 11: West discloses a photovoltaic (PV”) module array comprising:
a first and a second PV module (left and right modules) each including a PV panel (PV laminate, 14) for generating electricity and a frame (12L, 12R) secured to an undersurface thereof, the frame (12L, 12R) of the first and second PV module including a slot (A or B) extending along a portion thereof (figs. 1 and 6), each of the slots (A, B) having a insert depth extending in direction orthogonal to the respective undersurface (fig. 1);
a first joining rail (28) for securing the first and second PV module together, the first joining rail (28) having a longitudinal extent; the first joining rail (28) including a body (middle portion) having a pair of cantilevered walls (projections received into slots A and B) extending outwardly from the body (middle portion) and spaced from each other and extending along the longitudinal extent of the first joining rail (28) (fig. 1);
a first of the pair of cantilevered walls (projection received into slot A) being inserted in a slot (A) in the frame (12L) of the first PV module and the second of the pair of cantilevered walls (projection received into slot B) being inserted in the slot (B) in the frame (12R) of the second PV module, engagement of the pair of cantilevered walls (projections received into slots A and B) and their respective slots (A and B) prevents the first and second PV modules from moving relative to each other in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal extent of the first joining rail (28) (fig. 1); and
the first and second PV modules being slidable on the first joining rail (28) in an unsecured state, a plurality of fasteners (30) engageable with the frames (12L, 12R) and the elongate joining rail (28), the plurality of fasteners (30) movable to a securing position to secure the first and second PV modules relative to the first joining rail (28) wherein the position of the first and second PV modules are fixed (fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1: West (US 7,592,537 B1).
With regard to claim 18: West discloses a panel joining and support system (10) (figs. 1 and 6) comprising:
a first panel (left photovoltaic laminate, 14) having an upper surface and a lower surface;
a frame (12L) secured to the lower surface of the first panel (left photovoltaic laminate, 14), the frame (12L) having a first frame member extending downwardly from the lower surface and including a slot (A) having a longitudinal extent running along a length of the first frame member (fig. 1; col. 10, line 18-27); and
a joining rail (28) having a body (middle portion) and a first cantilevered wall (projection received in slot A) projecting upwardly from the body (middle portion), the first cantilevered wall (projection received in slot A) inserted within the slot (A) of the first frame member, a fastener (30) connected to the first frame member (12L) and movable to clamp the first cantilever wall (projection received in slot A) within the slot (A), wherein the first panel (left photovoltaic laminate, 14) is positionally fixed relative to the joining rail (28) (fig. 28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 22-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 12-15 and 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1: In addition the arguments submitted 11/10/25, the combination of all the elements of the claimed photovoltaic module support system, in particular the elongate slot being defined between a first and second spaced legs extending from the lower surface of the first PV panel in a direction substantially perpendicular to the lower surface of the first PV panel is not adequately taught or suggested in the prior art of record.
With regard to claims 12 and 23: The combination of all the elements of the claimed photovoltaic module support system, in particular a third PV module including a third PV panel for generating electricity and a frame secured to an undersurface thereof, the frame of the third PV module including a slot extending along a portion thereof, the first of the pair of walls being inserted in the slot in the frame of a third PV module to secure the third PV module to the first joining rail is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
With regard to claim 19: The combination of all the elements of the claimed photovoltaic module support system, in particular the first frame member including a first and second spaced legs forming the slot therebetween, the slot having a depth extending perpendicular to the lower surface of the first panel is not adequately taught or suggested in the prior art of record.
With regard to claim 22: The combination of all the elements of the claimed photovoltaic module support system, in particular the first frame on the first PV panel is disposed on the first PV panel such that the first frame is offset from only one edge of the first PV panel and the second frame on the second PV panel is offset from two edges of the second PV panel is not adequately taught or suggested in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to claims 1-15 and 18-21 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 11/10/25.
The previous rejection of claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-15 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 11/10/25.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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).
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 JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633