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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 3/31/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments
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) 1-6, 18, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Corio (WO2017/155798)
Regarding Claim 1, Corio et al. teaches a solar module securing device, comprising:
a rail [103, Fig. 24G, 0101] comprising a first edge and a second edge opposite from the first edge along a length of the rail [see annotated figure, the double side arrow shows the length of the rail in annotated figure],
a plurality of clamps [the combination of 122a and 122b, and 126, Fig. 24F, 0105] disposed on the rail and each comprising a plurality of wedge- shaped features [see 126 portion, Fig. 24F, 0107], and
a tube strap [144, Fig. 24F, 0102] secured to the rail [103, Fig. 24G, 0101] and comprising at least one hook disposed over and extending past the first edge [see annotated figure below, the hook extend past a portion of the clamp] away from the plurality of clamps [see annotated figure], the tube strap having a length extending in the same direction as the length of the rail [the solid arrow also shows the length of the tube strap, see annotated figure].
The circle areas are interpreted as a hook, which is consistent with hook 212 in figure 3A of the instant application. The square shapes are used to show the location on the rail where the first and second edges would be located on the rail. Figure 24F does not show the rail but would have rail 103 go through 144, and the first and second edge would be located on the rail at the location where the squares are located.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
727
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. teaches wherein the clamps disposed on rail comprise a first clamp adjacent to the first edge and a second clamp adjacent to the second edge [see 122a and 122b, and 126 in figure 24F, 0107, clamps 122 are part of structure and therefore meet the limitation of “on” the rail].
Regarding Claim 3, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. teaches wherein the clamps each comprise a trench adjacent to each of the wedge-shaped features [see annotated figure].
The circles area is interpreted as the trench
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
727
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. teaches wherein the clamps each comprise at least one wing, each wing comprising a pair of the wedge-shaped features disposed on opposite sides from each other [see top area of 126, Fig. 24F, 0107].
Regarding Claim 5, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. teaches wherein the at least two wings comprise two wings extending parallel with each other [see top area of 126, Fig. 24F, 0107].
Regarding Claim 6, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. teaches further comprising a bridge coupling the two wings to each other [see top area of 126, Fig. 24F, 0107].
Regarding Claim 18, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. teaches wherein the tube strap comprises a lowest portion extending parallel to a topmost surface of the rail [Fig. 24G]
Regarding Claim 22, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. teaches wherein the at least one hook is not in direct contact with the first edge [see annotated figure]
Regarding Claim 23, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. teaches wherein the at least one hook comprises a first portion extending past the length of the rail away from the plurality of clamps, and a second portion extending back into the length of the rail towards the plurality of clamps [see annotated figure]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio (WO2017/155798) in view of Ballentine (US Pub No. 2023/0133308)
Regarding Claim 7, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. is silent on wherein the rail comprises a top surface and a first side surface and a second side surface each extending from the top surface, the first side surface and the second side surface each comprising a cutout.
Ballentine et al. teaches a rail with a cutout that is rectilinear [Fig. 1, 0069-0070].
Since Corio et al. teaches the use of a rail for a solar module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the rail of Corio et al. with the rail design of Ballentine et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Corio et al. teaches wherein the cutout is rectilinear [see rejection of claim 7]
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio (WO2017/155798) in view of Ballentine 2 (US Pub No. 2020/0153382)
Regarding Claim 9, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. is silent on wherein the rail comprises a plurality of bolt holes.
Ballentine 2 et al. teaches a rail which provides attachment by the means of bolts [Fig. 27, 0042]
Since Corio et al. teaches the use of rails for a solar module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the bolts of Ballentine 2 et al. to the rail and tube strap of Cario et al. in order to attach the two components together as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Corio et al. teaches wherein the clamps are secured to the rail by bolts disposed through the bolt holes [see rejection of claim 9]
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Corio et al. teaches wherein the tube strap is secured to the rail by the bolts [see rejection of claim 9].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio (WO2017/155798) in view of Fresart (US Pub No. 2022/0200522)
Regarding Claim 12, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. is silent on wherein the tube strap comprises a cable management hole.
Fresart et al. teaches a tube with which can be shaped with more than one sides [0026] adapted to a tube strap [Fig. 6, 0039] and the use of a cable management apparatus [146, Fig. 3A, 0029].
Since Corio et al. teaches the use of a tube for a solar module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify add the cable management of Fresart et al. to the tube strap of Corio et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 13, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. is silent on wherein at least part of the tube strap has a cross section comprising a trapezoidal shape.
Fresart et al. teaches a tube with which can be shaped with more than one sides [0026] adapted to a tube strap [Fig. 6, 0039] and the use of a cable management apparatus [146, Fig. 3A, 0029].
Since Corio et al. teaches the use of a tube for a solar module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the tube of Corio et al. with the tube design comprising more than one side of Fresart et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio (WO2017/155798)
Regarding Claim 14, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. is silent on wherein the at least one hook is disposed below the first edge of the rail.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the rails and hooks , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the rail and hook are changed, the precise parameters of the rail and hook would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the at least one hook is disposed below the first edge of the rail.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the rail and hook to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 15, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. is silent on wherein the at least one hook comprises a first hook disposed above the first edge and a second hook disposed above the second edge.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks are changed, the precise parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the at least one hook is disposed below the first edge of the rail.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 16, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. is silent on wherein the first and second hook are disposed on outermost edges of the tube strap.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks are changed, the precise parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the at least one hook is disposed below the first edge of the rail.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 17, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. is silent on wherein the tube strap has a greater length than the rail.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks are changed, the precise parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the at least one hook is disposed below the first edge of the rail.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 18, Corio et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Corio et al. is silent on wherein the tube strap comprises a lowest portion extending parallel to a topmost surface of the rail.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks are changed, the precise parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the tube strap comprises a lowest portion extending parallel to a topmost surface of the rail.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the tube strap, rails and hooks to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Corio (WO2017/155798) and Ballentine (US Pub No. 2023/0133308) are the closest prior art.
Modified Corio et al. teaches limitations of the claim but does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the at least one hook is in direct contact with the first edge” in claim 21.
These references, nor any other reference or combination of references in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations of “wherein the at least one hook is in direct contact with the first edge” in conjunction with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Therefore; claim 1 is allowed once the limitation of claim 21 is incorporated into claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the new limitations in claim 1, Corio et al. teaches all the new limitations as described further in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights