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 .
Election/Restrictions
No claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on 1/20/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Fig. 11B: The figure includes multiple views that should be separated into their own respective figures.
Fig. 11C: The figure includes multiple views that should be separated into their own respective figures. Further, reference character “901” should be rewritten for legibility purposes and oriented in the direction of the view, so as to not have to rotate the sheet.
Fig. 11D: The figure includes multiple views that should be separated into their own respective figures.
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 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 1-11 and 16 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 2 of the clam, it’s unclear the limitation “a solar module” is referencing the previously recited solar modules. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --one of the solar modules--.
With regard to claim 7: it’s unclear if the claimed rail bracket and swivel bracket pivotally connected to the rail bracket by one or more fasteners is referencing the previously recited first bracket assembly. As described in par. [0021] of the original specification and shown in fig. 2, the upper tilt bracket assembly (105) may include a rail bracket (201), or lower portion of the upper tilt bracket assembly (105), and a swivel bracket (202), or upper portion of the upper tilt assembly (105). For the purpose of examination, the first bracket assembly comprises the rail bracket and swivel bracket pivotally connected to the rail bracket by one or more fasteners.
With regard to claim 11: It’s unclear as to how the first bracket assembly is configured to pivotally connect to the support leg and pivotally connect to the first horizontal rail. As shown in figure 2, the first bracket assembly (105) is configured to pivotally connect the support leg (104) to the horizontal rail (102) (emphasis added). For the purpose of examination, the first bracket assembly is configured to pivotally connect the support leg to the horizontal rail.
Claims 1-11 and 16 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) 1-4, 7-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lepley et al. (US 2022/0407449 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Lepley et al. discloses a system (100) to support solar modules (PV panels 101) (figs. 1-2), the system comprising:
a first support assembly (first girder 112, 114, 150, 156 and 158) configured to support one of the solar modules (101), wherein the first support assembly (a first girder 112, 114, 150, 156 and 158) includes:
a first horizontal rail (first girder 112) configured to extend along a first half of said one of the solar modules (101) (figs. 1, 3 and 12),
a support leg (column 150), wherein the support leg (150) has a same cross-sectional shape (generally square cross section) as the first horizontal rail (112) (figs. 1-2, 9 and 12; par. [0036]). Examiner notes that Lepley et al. discloses that the first horizonal rail (112) can be made of tubular steel members having a generally square cross section (par. [0036]).
Lepley et al. discloses a first support assembly (first girder 112, 114, 150, 156 and 158) further including a first bracket assembly (114, 158, 159) configured to connect the support leg (150) to the first horizontal rail (112) (fig. 12); and
a second support assembly (second girder 112 and 148) configured to support said one of the solar modules (101) along a second half opposite the first half, wherein the second support assembly (second girder 112 and 148) includes a second horizontal rail (112) configured to extend along the second half of said one of the solar modules (112) (figs. 1, 3 and 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3: Lepley et al. (US 2022/0407449 A1)
With regard to claim 2: Lepley et al. discloses that the second support assembly (second girder 112 and 148) further includes a second bracket assembly (148) configured to connect to the second horizontal rail (fig. 11).
With regard to claim 3: Lepley et al. discloses that the second bracket assembly (148) is pivotally connected to a roof attachment bracket (weld tube 114) (fig. 11).
With regard to claim 4: Lepley et al. discloses that the support leg (column 150) is at a specific length to achieve a corresponding tilt angle of said one of the solar modules (101) from an installation surface while said one of the solar modules (101) is supported by the first support assembly (first girder 112, 114, 150, 156 and 158) (fig. 1).
The support leg being “cut” is considered a product by process limitation.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 7: Lepley et al. discloses that the first bracket assembly (114, 158, 159) further includes: a rail bracket (158) (figs. 10 and 12); and a swivel bracket (114) pivotally connected to the rail bracket (158) by one or more fasteners (via hinge pin 159) (fig. 12).
With regard to claim 8: Lepley et al. discloses that the rail bracket (158) is further connected to the support leg (150) to allow the support leg (150) to pivot relative to the first horizontal rail (112) (fig. 12).
With regard to claim 9: Lepley et al. discloses that the rail bracket (upper weld tube 156 and 158) includes one or more stop flanges (A) that extend at an angle away from a top surface (B) of the rail bracket (upper weld tube 156 and 158) (fig. 12).
PNG
media_image2.png
519
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12: Lepley et al. (US 2022/0407449 A1)
With regard to claim 10: Lepley et al. discloses that the struts, girders, bridge portions and other linear forms disclosed may have any suitable cross sectional shape, e.g., I-beam, tubes of any cross section, straps, rods, or c-channels (par. [0036]). Accordingly, one or more of the first horizontal rail and the second horizontal rail may be substantially U-shaped (c-channel) including the other linear forms (i.e. the support leg).
With regard to claim 11: Lepley et al. discloses the first bracket assembly (first girder 112, 114, 150, 156 and 158) is configured to pivotally connect to the support leg (150) to the first horizontal rail (first girder 112) (fig. 12).
With regard to claim 16: Lepley et al. discloses that the first bracket assembly (114, 158, 159) will inherently electrically bond the support leg (150) to the first horizontal rail (first girder 112) as the materials are of steel and/or welded to steel implicitly implying a metal material (par. [0036], [0043]-[0044] and [0046]).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepley et al. (US 2022/0407449 A1) in view of Ullman (US 2003/0177706 A1).
With regard to claim 5: Lepley et al. does not disclose one or more clamps that attach said one of the solar modules to the first horizontal rail or the second horizontal rail.
However, Ullman discloses a system to support solar modules (fig. 11; abstract), the system comprising one or more clamps (76,78) that attach a solar module to a first horizontal rail (first horizontal member 54) or a second horizontal rail (second horizontal member 54) (fig. 11; par. [0154]-[0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lepley et al. to include one or more clamps such taught by Ullman in order to provide a known means for securing the solar modules to the horizontal members of the system that allow for ease of installation and removal. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the system of Lepley et al. to include clamps such as taught by Ullman. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama (US 2015/0222218 A1) in view of Lepley et al. (US 2022/0407449 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Koyama discloses a system to support solar modules (1) (figs. 1-6), the system comprising:
a first support assembly (rear horizontal frame 4, 3b and 8) configured to support one of the solar modules (1) (figs. 1-3), wherein the first support assembly includes:
a first horizontal rail (rear horizontal frame 4) configured to extend along a first half (rear half) of said one of the solar modules (1) (figs. 1-2),
a support leg (3b) (figs. 1-3), and
a first bracket assembly (8) configured to connect the support leg (3b) to the first horizontal rail (rear horizontal frame 4) (fig. 3); and
a second support assembly (3a, 4) configured to support said one of the solar modules (1) along a second half opposite the first half (front half), wherein the second support assembly (3a, 4) includes a second horizontal rail (front horizontal 4) configured to extend along the second half of said one of the solar modules (1) (figs. 1-2).
Koyama does not disclose that the support leg has a same cross-sectional shape as the first horizontal rail.
However, Lepley et al. discloses a system to support solar modules where the struts, girders, bridge portions and other linear forms disclosed may have any suitable cross sectional shape, e.g., I-beam, tubes of any cross section, straps, rods, or c-channels (par. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Koyama to all linear forms comprise the same cross-section including the support leg and the first horizontal rail such as taught by Lepley et al. in order to provide ease of manufacturing in which all the linear forms are made of elements of the same configuration.
With regard to claim 4: Koyama discloses that the support leg (3b) is a specific length to achieve a corresponding tilt angle of said one of the solar modules (1) from an installation surface while said one of the solar modules (1) is supported by the first support assembly (rear horizontal frame 4, 3b and 8) (figs. 1-3 and 6).
The support leg being “cut” is considered a product by process limitation.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 6: Koyama discloses an L-foot (7) that secures the support leg (3b) to an installation surface (figs. 1-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to systems for supporting solar modules.
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