DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3 are cancelled.
Claims 4-13 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 on 8/25/25 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification does not appear to identify the claimed boss, nor does it appear to state what constitutes features 322 in Fig. 3B.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 4-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braunstein et al (“Braunstein”) (US 2015/0180404) in view of Nakajima (US 2008/0031703).
Re claim 4, Braunstein discloses a stabilization assembly (Fig. 5 101), comprising:
a shaft (104);
a foot (108) coupled to a first end (top end of 104, as “coupled to” requires no particular disposition) the shaft (104); and
a snap housing (105) comprising body (117), a snap plate (115, 120), and a boss (see examiner comments; where “boss” is defined, per Merriam-Webster, as “a protuberant part or body”), the snap plate (115, 120) disposed on a first end (either end of 117) of the body (117) to the snap housing (105) disposed a second end (bottom end of 104) on the shaft (104), the snap plate (115, 120) comprising a first deformable arm (115a) and a second deformable arm (115b) that configured to removably installable within (Fig. 4A) a solar panel coupling (103), the boss (see examiner comments) extending away from (vertically) the body (117) and configured to engage (Fig. 9D) the solar panel coupling (103), wherein a distance between the snap housing (105) and the foot (108) is adjustable ([0086]),
but fails to disclose the shaft comprising a plurality of first teeth, the foot being adjustable by pulling the first teeth through the snap plate.
However, Nakajima discloses the shaft (12) comprising a plurality of first teeth (18), the foot (Braunstein: 108) being adjustable (Braunstein: [0086]; Nakajima [0081] discloses removal, and as such, is capable of adjustment) by pulling the first teeth (18) through the snap plate (P1/P2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilization assembly of Braunstein with the shaft comprising a plurality of first teeth, the foot being adjustable by pulling the first teeth through the snap plate as disclosed by Nakajima in order to connect components together in a tool-less manner via a single motion and in a removable manner ([0004]). In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (threaded connection) for another (toothed connections) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
It should further be noted that the language “pulling” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 5, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 4, wherein a solar panel coupling (103) is coupled to the snap plate (115, 120), with a distance between the foot (108) and the solar panel coupling 9103) being adjustable ([0087]).
Re claim 6, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 5, comprising: a solar panel coupling (103) comprising a top portion (proximate 113) and a bottom portion (proximate 116), the bottom portion defining a first opening (between 116), the solar panel coupling (103) is configured to support a solar panel (112), wherein the snap housing (105) is disposed between (at least partially) the solar panel coupling (103) and the snap plate (115, 120), and wherein the shaft (104) is installable through a first hole (113) defined in the solar panel coupling (103).
Re claim 7, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 6, wherein the stabilization assembly (101) is configured to stabilize a solar panel coupling (103) to aid in installation of solar panels (112).
Re claim 8, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 6, wherein at least one of the shaft (104) and foot (108) are configured to create a loaded engagement between (Fig. 9G) the solar panel coupling (103) and a roof surface (102, at least via 114), in response to being installed (Fig. 1) on the roof surface (102).
Re claim 10, Braunstein discloses a stabilization assembly (Fig. 5 101), comprising:
a shaft (104);
a foot (108) operatively coupled to a first end (top end of 104, as “coupled” requires no particular disposition) of the shaft (104); and
snap housing (105) comprising body (117), a snap plate (115, 120) and a boss (see examiner comments), the snap plate (115, 120) disposed on a first end (either end of 117) of the body (117), the snap plate (117) and the snap housing (105) disposed around the shaft (104) on a second end (bottom end of 104) of the shaft (104) and retaining the shaft (104), the snap plate (115, 120) comprising a plurality of deformable arms (115) that configured to removably installable within (Fig. 4A) a solar panel coupling (103), the boss (see examiner comments) extending away from (vertically) the body (117) and configured to engage (Fig. 9D) the solar panel coupling (103); and
the foot (108) actuatable ([0087]) to adjust a distance between the foot (108) and the solar panel coupling (103), wherein the foot (108) engages with a roof surface (102, via 114) in response to the solar panel coupling (103) being installed on the roof surface (102),
but fails to disclose the shaft comprising teeth, the foot actuatable by pulling the teeth through the snap plate.
However, Nakajima discloses the shaft (12) comprising teeth (18), the foot (Braunstein: 108) actuatable (Braunstein: [0086]; Nakajima [0081] discloses removal, and as such, is capable of adjustment) by pulling the teeth (18) through the snap plate (P1/P2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilization assembly of Braunstein with the shaft comprising teeth, the foot actuatable by pulling the teeth through the snap plate as disclosed by Nakajima in order to connect components together in a tool-less manner via a single motion and in a removable manner ([0004]). In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (threaded connection) for another (toothed connections) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
It should further be noted that the language “pulling” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 11, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 10, wherein the solar panel coupling (103) comprises a top portion (proximate 113) and a bottom portion (proximate 116), the bottom portion defining a first opening (between 116), the solar panel coupling (103) is configured to support a solar panel (112), wherein the shaft (104) is installable through a first hole (113) defined in the solar panel coupling (103).
Re claim 12, Braunstein as modified discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 10, wherein the stabilization assembly (101) is configured to stabilize a solar panel coupling (103) to aid in installation of solar panels (112).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braunstein et al (“Braunstein”) (US 2015/0180404) in view of Nakajima (US 2008/0031703) and Jun et al (“Jun”) (US 2012/0145227).
Re claim 9, Braunstein discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 4, Nakajima discloses wherein the shaft (12) comprises a first plurality of teeth (18), but fails to disclose wherein the snap housing having a second plurality of teeth, wherein the first plurality of teeth engages the second plurality of teeth.
However, Jun discloses wherein the snap housing (200) having a second plurality of teeth (222), wherein the first plurality of teeth (122) engages the second plurality of teeth (222).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilization assembly of Braunstein wherein the snap housing having a second plurality of teeth, wherein the first plurality of teeth engages the second plurality of teeth as disclosed by Jun in order to connect components together in a tool-less manner ([0020]). In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (threaded connection) for another (toothed connections) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
Re claim 13, Braunstein discloses the stabilization assembly of claim 10, Nakajima discloses wherein the shaft (12) comprises a first plurality of teeth (18), but fails to disclose wherein the snap housing having a second plurality of teeth, wherein the first plurality of teeth engages the second plurality of teeth.
However, Jun discloses wherein the snap housing (200) having a second plurality of teeth (222), wherein the first plurality of teeth (122) engages the second plurality of teeth (222).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stabilization assembly of Braunstein wherein the snap housing having a second plurality of teeth, wherein the first plurality of teeth engages the second plurality of teeth as disclosed by Jun in order to connect components together in a tool-less manner ([0020]). In addition, it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (threaded connection) for another (toothed connections) to obtain predictable results (connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
465
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Mattei can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635