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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-46 are pending and examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. 35 USC 112 (f) has not been applied in the following claim.
Regarding claims 25 and 38, the following interpretation applies. Claim 21 provides limitation (b): “(b) constructing a solar module array over a terrain at least in part by forming a plurality of post-clip interfaces between the plurality of clips and the plurality of posts …”. Claim 25 states “wherein (b) comprises forming the plurality of post-clip interfaces at least in part by using a tool that is located on a post installer load head, wherein the post installer load head is located on one or more mobile platforms …”. The term comprises is open-ended and therefore may encompass steps not specified, i.e., removing the tool from the post installer load head and/or the post installer removed from the mobile platform into the field. One embodiment of applicant’s specification has a clinch type tool integral to the post head, but not every embodiment. Further, the specification provides an embodiment wherein there is a mobile post installer as well as a mobile platform for the solar cells (see applicant’s specification page 13, para [0102]), wherein the post installer mobile platform is in the field when the posts are being installed, but again, this is not true of all embodiments.
Without clarification in the claim language that the tool is not removed from the post installer, that is also on the post installer mobile platform, the claim is interpreted that a tool is used to form the clip-post interface, wherein the tool was once stored or on a post installer while the installer was on a mobile platform.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 21, 23-24, 30-31, 37, 40-44 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US 2014/0261642).
Regarding claim 21, Beck discloses a method for solar module assembly, comprising:
(a) providing a plurality of posts (ground support 2), a plurality of solar modules (6), and a plurality of clips (clips comprise plurality of pins 20 wherein the module frame is configured to engage with pins (para [0060]; alternatively, clips comprise plurality of clamps 16, para [0059]) coupled to the plurality of solar modules (see figs. 1, 3 and 4, see para [0053]-[0064]); and
(b) constructing a solar module array over a terrain (see para [0001]-[0002] and [0005]) at least in part by forming a plurality of post-clip interfaces between the plurality of clips and the plurality of posts (see para [0053]-[0064]),
wherein the plurality of post-clip interfaces has a tolerance that enables the solar module array to automatically conform to the terrain (see para [0012]-[0016], [0065]-[0069], difference in terrain is accommodated by different height posts, therefore clips accommodate said posts, i.e. “different heights of the two ground supports above the terrain level can be achieved by means of bars of different lengths. As an alternative, it is also possible to have bars of equal length wherein, in this case, the ground support of the pair is driven deeper into the ground than the other ground support of the pair. The bar sections having the external thread can then be used to adjust the levels of the disk and the bearing plate such that the desired difference in height between the two bearing plates of the pair have been achieved”);
wherein at least one solar module of the plurality of solar modules is supported by
at least one post of the plurality of posts (ground support 2a) at one or more non-corner positions along a first side of the at least one solar module (see figs. 2, 2a and 4, para [0062]-[0063]).
Beck does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one post is along a longitudinal side, nor there is at least one additional post of the plurality of posts at one or more additional non-corner positions along a second longitudinal side of the at least one solar module.
Beck discloses a variety of post and clip configurations (see figures) that are supported along the longitudinal and non-longitudinal sides of the solar module. Beck further discloses the ground support includes a multitude of ground supports, selected based on the size of the PV module (para [0014]. The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., combining the various disclosures of Beck, post/clips on opposite longitudinal sides, see figs. 1 and 10, with the post/clip interface at a non-corner position see fig. 2 and fig. 4), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., supporting the solar modules on two longitudinal side at non-corner positions). (See MPEP § 2143).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Beck by duplicating the side clip and post including on longitudinal and opposite sides, therefore having a plurality of post and clip configurations, to account for the size, terrain, and installation conditions of the PV module.
Regarding claim 23, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein (b) comprises forming the plurality of post-clip interfaces at one or more corners of the plurality of solar modules (shown in fig. 3, para [0033]-[0034] and [0055]).
Regarding claim 24, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein (b) comprises forming the plurality of post-clip interfaces at one or more sides of the plurality of solar modules (shown in fig. 4, para [0062]).
Regarding claim 30, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of post-clip interfaces is formed without requiring one or more fasteners (i.e. the frame of the module fits over pins 20 without any fasteners, shown in fig. 3, see para [0060]).
Regarding claim 31, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein a post-clip interface of the plurality of post-clip interfaces is formed at least in part by using one or more fasteners (18) to join a clip (16) of the plurality of clips with a tab (bearing surface 14) located on a post of the plurality of posts (see para [0059]-[0060], shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 37, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein the solar module array comprises a wired array or a dual-tilt array (dual-tilt array shown in figs. 1, 2 and 10, see para [0053]).
Regarding claim 40, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of clips is pre-attached to or pre-formed on the plurality of solar modules (clips comprise plurality of pins 20 wherein the module frame, i.e., pre-attached, is configured to engage with pins (para [0060]).
Regarding claim 41, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of post-clip interfaces have an angular tolerance and a vertical tolerance that enables the solar module array to automatically conform to the terrain (i.e., using bearing plate, para [0007], and [0009]).
Regarding claim 42, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the first side and the second side are opposite to each other.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Beck by duplicating the side clip and post including on the opposite side, therefore having a plurality of post and clip configurations, to account for the size, terrain, and installation conditions of the PV module (see obviousness discussion of claim 21).
Regarding claim 44, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein the one or more non-corner positions are at a ridge of the at least one solar module and the one or more additional non-corner positions are at a lower confluence point of the at least one solar module (shown in figs. 1, 1a, 2, 2a., see obviousness discussion of claims 1 and 42).
Regarding claim 47, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein the post-clip interface excludes a spanning intermediate structure (see fig. 4, para [0062]-[0063]). Specifically, the clip of the post-clip interface comprises the bearing surface 14a and the clamp portion 16a, tightened by bolt 18a. The clip of Beck does not comprise, therefore excludes, a spanning intermediate portion as all portions (14a, 16a, and 18a) are part of the clip.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Taha et al. (US 2020/0052644).
Regarding claim 22, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, wherein the terrain is leveled (see para [0024]). Beck does not disclose wherein (b) comprises constructing the solar module array in absence of grading the terrain.
Taha is analogous art to Beck as Taha is directed to solar arrays (see abstract). Taha discloses solar arrays installed on terrain in the absence of grading (see abstract, para [0003], [0006]-[0007] and [0012]-[0013]). It is a well-known expedient in the art that grading requires adds expense.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Beck to install a solar array without grading the terrain because eliminating grading saves costs.
Claims 25-26, 34-35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Clemenzi et al. (US 2021/0211096).
Regarding claims 25 and 38, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, but does not specifically disclose wherein (b) comprises forming the plurality of post-clip interfaces at least in part by using a tool to place and affix a clip of the plurality of clips to a post of the plurality of posts. Beck does disclose securing the clip by installing a threaded pin into a riveting nut (see para [0059]). Tools are a well-known expedient in the art to install a threaded fastener into a riveting nut (see MPEP § 2144.03).
The Court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., tools) according to known methods (i.e. installing a threaded pin into a riveting nut, i.e. placing and affixing clips to a posts) to yield predictable results.
Beck does not disclose that the tool is located on a post installer load head, wherein the post installer load head is located on one or more mobile platforms that carry the plurality of posts or the plurality of solar modules.
Clemenzi is analogous art to Beck as Clemenzi is directed to forming a photovoltaic array (see abstract). Clemenzi discloses a mobile platform that carries a plurality of posts and the plurality of solar modules (see abstract, para [0018]-[0019], [0024]-[0026], and claims 1 to 3).
Clemenzi discloses a robotic array can assemble a PV array economically and efficiently (quickly) (see para [0019]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Beck to include a mobile platform that carries a plurality of posts and a plurality of solar modules as the automated method is economical and efficient.
In regards to a tool being placed/stored on a post installer, the court has held it would be obvious to a parson having ordinary skill in the art to modify an arrangement as a matter of design choice wherein the function of the device is not altered, See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144).
Regarding claim 26, modified Beck discloses a method of claim 25, further comprising: using the one or more mobile platforms to autonomously position and assemble the plurality of posts and the plurality of solar modules over the terrain to construct the solar module array (see Clemenzi para [0016], [0019], and [0024]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 34, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, further comprising:
controlling one or more mobile platforms to autonomously position and assemble at least one post of the plurality of posts and the at least one solar module of the plurality of solar modules over the terrain to construct the solar module array without requiring aid or involvement from a user (para [0016], [0019], and [0024]-[0028] and claim 20). See obvious discussion of claim 25.
The limitation to identify a location suitable for autonomous positioning and assembly of at least one solar module of the plurality of solar modules would be inherent to using the method of Clemenzi (see MPEP § 2112). Alternatively, identifying a location is a well-known expedient in the art (see MPEP 2144.03, reference McClure et al. (US 2015/0331972), para [0044]).
Regarding claim 39, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, Beck as modified by Clemenzi (see obvious discussion claim 25) discloses a method further comprising: using a testing tool located on one or more mobile platforms to perform electrical tests on one or more sections of the solar module array constructed in (b) (see para [0040], i.e. sensor is a tool).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. and Clemenzi et al. as applied to claims 1, 25 and 26 above, and further in view of Capizzo (US 2017/0327091).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, modified Beck discloses a method of claim 26, but does not disclose the method further comprises:
using one or more sensors to locate and move the post installer load head on the one or more mobile platforms as the solar module array is being constructed (claim 27);
wherein the one or more sensors comprise a geolocation sensor (claim 28).
Capizzo is analogous art to Beck modified by Clemenzi discloses an autonomous mobile unit/vehicle including a solar module, wherein the unit moves to a location autonomously and sets up a site autonomously (see para 0010, 0135).
Capizzo discloses the unit has multiple sensors including a geolocation sensor (i.e. GPS) located on the platforms (see paragraph 0135). Wherein the sensors function to sense surroundings, obstacles for navigation and/or situations response. Further the sensors aid in docking/interacting and guiding elements to the platform deck, also inserting and replacing items (see para 0123, 0135-0141, 0150). The position sensors determine relative locations (see para 0150). Capizzo also includes sensors to determine to trigger clamping devices (see para 0158]).
Capizzo discloses that sensors including a geolocation sensor are used to perform functions similar to that of Clemenzi, including geographical location, sensing obstacles, clamping and moving devices, inserting devices (see para 0123, 0135-0141, 0150, 0158).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Clemenzi to comprise sensors with the functions required to autonomously assemble a solar array, i.e. moving the platform, removing items from the platforms for use, which reads on position/assemble modules and posts, as the court has held it is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique (sensors for mobile navigation, moving and positioning items from a platform as taught by Capizzo) to a known device (i.e. the autonomous solar array assembly unit taught by Clemenzi), wherein the results are predictable, i.e. control over the autonomous process.
Claims 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0291255).
Regarding claim 29, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the method further comprises assessing a structural integrity of the plurality of post-clip interfaces based at least in part on (i) a measured force or a deflection during or after installation of the plurality of solar modules onto the plurality of posts or (ii) one or more images of the plurality of post-clip interfaces taken during or after the plurality of post-clip interfaces have been formed.
Wu is analogous art to Beck as Wu is directed to forming a fastening by a rivet nut (see Beck para [0059] and Wu abstract). Wu discloses a method and instrument to test a pull force of a rivet nut setting tool in use (see para [0001]). Wu discloses the pull test tool tracks the historical pull of the rivet nut tool and can determine when wear and tear are interfering (see para [0001]-[0005]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Beck to include a pull test and pull tester as the pull test determines the continued performance of the rivet nut puller.
Regarding claim 36, modified Beck discloses a method of claim 21, further comprising:
using a testing tool located on one or more mobile platforms to perform pull strength and assembly tests on one or more sections of the solar module array constructed in (b) (i.e., a pull tester for rivet nut pull tool, see Beck para [0059] and Wu para [0001]-[0005]). See obviousness discussion of claim 29.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claims 21, above, and further in view of Cusson (US 2010/0237028).
Regarding claim 32, Beck discloses a method of claim 21, but does not disclose further comprising:
using a movable tool to form a plurality of holes in-situ on at least the plurality of clips on the plurality of solar modules or a plurality of tabs on the plurality of posts.
Cusson is analogous to Beck as Cusson is directed to solar module arrays (see abstract). Cusson discloses wherein holes are drilled in-situ so support structures (i.e. joists and posts) in order to align to the bracket holes (see para [0007]), wherein a movable tool is inherent (see MPEP § 2112).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Beck to include a movable tool to drill holes in-situ becasue the bracket and posts are in alignment.
Regarding claim 33, Beck discloses a method of claim 32, further comprising:
installing one or more fasteners through the plurality of holes formed in-situ on the plurality of clips or the plurality of tabs (see Beck para [0059]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. and Clemenzi et al. as applied to claims 21 and 34 above, and further in view of McClure et al. (US 2015/0331972).
Regarding claim 35, Beck discloses a method of claim 34. Modified Beck does not disclose the limitation wherein the location is identified based at least in part on processing at least one of (a) a landscape topology data of the terrain, and (b) geographic information system (GIS) data.
McClure is analogous art to modified Beck as McClure is directed to solar arrays (see abstract). McClure discloses identifying a location based on topology data of the terrain received from satellite data (see para [0044]), which reads on processing at least one of (a) a landscape topology data of the terrain, and (b) geographic information system (GIS) data.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify prior art, i.e. modified Beck, by combining prior art elements (i.e. the topology data of the terrain from satellite data to choose a location as disclosed by McClure), wherein the results are predictable (site location selection).
Claims 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US 2014/0261642) in view of Clemenzi et al. (US 2021/0211096) and McClure et al. (US 2015/0331972)
Regarding claim 45, modified Beck discloses a method for solar module assembly, comprising:
(a) providing a plurality of posts, a plurality of solar modules, and a plurality of clips coupled to the plurality of solar modules (see discussion of claim 21);
(b) identifying a location on a terrain suitable for autonomous positioning at least one post of the plurality of posts based in part on processing at least one of (1) topology data or (2) GIS data (see discussion of claims 34 and 35); and
(c) constructing a solar module array of the plurality of solar modules at the location on the terrain at least in part by forming a plurality of post-clip interfaces between the plurality of clips and the plurality of posts, wherein the plurality of post-clip interfaces has a tolerance that enables the solar module array to automatically conform to the terrain without grading the terrain; a clip in the plurality of clips engages a respective solar module in the plurality of solar modules along a non-corner region (see discussion of claims 1 and 41).
(See discussion of claim 21 and 41, see obviousness discussions of claims 1, 34 and 35, see also Beck figs. 1, 3 and 4, see para [0001]-[0002], [0007], [0009], [0012]-[0016], and [0053]-[0069]; Clemenzi see abstract, para [0018]-[0019], [0024]-[0026], and claims 1 to 3; and see McClure para [0044]).
Modified Beck does not disclose wherein each post forms a single post-clip interface. Beck discloses wherein the non-corner post/clip interface results in two post-clip interfaces for a single post (see fig. 2).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a one piece (integral) construction (i.e., one post, two clips) or a multiple piece (separable) (a single post/clip interface) construction as the design is merely a matter of engineering choice wherein the results are predictable, (i.e. secure connection of post to solar module). See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See also MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 46, modified Beck discloses a method for solar module assembly, comprising:
(a) providing a plurality of posts, a plurality of solar modules, and a plurality of clips coupled to the plurality of solar modules (see discussion of claim 21); and
(b) constructing a solar module array over a terrain at least in part by forming a plurality of post-clip interfaces between the plurality of clips and the plurality of posts (see discussion of claim 21),
wherein the plurality of post-clip interfaces has a tolerance that enables the solar module array to automatically conform to the terrain (see discussion of claims 1 and 41),
wherein at least two solar modules of the plurality of solar modules are supported by at least one post of the plurality of posts at one or more non-corner positions (see discussion of claim 21); and
a first longitudinal end of the one post (i.e., top of the post) couples to a single edge of each of the at least two solar modules (see Beck figs. 2 and 4), and an opposing longitudinal end of the one post couples to the terrain (see Beck fig. 2).
(See discussion of claims 1 and 41, see obviousness discussions of claims 34 and 35, see also Beck figs. 1, 3 and 4, see para [0001]-[0002], [0007], [0009], [0012]-[0016], and [0053]-[0069]; Clemenzi see abstract, para [0018]-[0019], [0024]-[0026], and claims 1 to 3; and see McClure para [0044]).
Modified Beck does not disclose wherein along a side of the at least two solar modules at a lower confluence point of the at least two solar modules.
Beck discloses a variety of post and clip configurations (see figures). Beck further discloses the ground support includes a multitude of ground supports, selected based on the size of the PV module (para [0014], The Court has held it is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to merely duplicate parts unless a new and unexpected result is produced (See MPEP § 2144.04).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Beck by duplicating the side clip and post including along a side of the at least two solar modules at a lower confluence point of the at least two solar modules, therefore having a plurality of post and clip configurations, to account for the size, terrain, and installation conditions of the PV module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the claim interpretation of claims 25 and 28, the argument is not persuasive and the interpretation remains. Applicant discusses a tool fixed to a platform in para [0035], and an installation machine comprising a post tool jig wherein the jig can grab features on clips on posts to both index and to hold the clips while pressing modules into them (para [0251]-[0253]). There is no indication the tool in para [0035] and claims 25 and 28 references the jig of para [0251]. Applicant does not provide a special definition for fixed that the tool is permanently fixed, or a specific tool, such as the jig. Applicant is aware of the language in the specification that would narrow the claim interpretation.
Regarding applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claims 21, 45 and 46 over Beck et al., the argument is not persuasive. Applicant is objecting that Beck demonstrates the post and clips in a different configuration. The point is that Beck discloses clamps for the corner and non-corner. Actual placement, i.e., long/longitudinal side of the module, versus short side of the module is an engineering choice. See obviousness discussion of claims 21, 45 and 46.
Further, the court has held "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Arguing that there can be no engineering discretion as to how to best place the posts to support the modules is not a persuasive argument.
In regards to applicant’s arguments regarding a single post/clip interface, rather than the Beck post/clip interface, separating a device into multiple pieces is again an engineering choice (see MPEP § 2144.04.) and not a persuasive argument.
In regards to applicant’s argument that Beck teaches away from the limitation regarding a lower confluence is not persuasive. The passage simply refers to a disclosed embodiment, not a statement teaching away. See UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 692, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) "a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed." See MPEP § 2145.
In regards to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 46, wherein at “least two solar modules of the plurality of solar modules are supported by at least one post of the plurality of posts at one or more non-corner positions along a side of the at least two solar modules at a lower confluence point of the at least two solar modules; and
a first longitudinal end of the one post couples to a single edge of each of the at least two solar modules, and an opposing longitudinal end of the one post couples to the terrain.”, applicant’s arguments ignore that this configuration is rejected over fig. 4. Applicant starts arguing against the corner posts simply because Beck in the embodiment used corner post at the lower confluence point. Again, it is engineering choice as to where to place the posts and clips to best support the solar modules. Beck discloses corner clips, non-corner clips, and shows clips on all sides. Beck shows small sections of an array as in fig. 2, or a larger array as in fig. 1. Mixing components of different embodiments shown in Beck falls strictly under the obviousness discussion of KSR. See MPEP § 2143. Arguments requiring exact placement of a post or a clip, totally ignoring obvious engineering choice of placement, is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721