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
Claims 23-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 2: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a mounting ridge” should be --the mounting ridge-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claims 3-16: Line 1 of each claim, it appears the limitation “The mounting system” should be --The PV mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 3: Line 1 of the claim, it appear “comprises;” should be --comprise:--.
With regard to claims 6-7 and 9: Line 1 of the claim, it appears “the system” should be –the PV mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 11: Lines 2-3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the mounting system” should be --the PV mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 13: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “mounting mats” should be --the mounting mats-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the system” should be --the PV mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 14: Line 7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a plurality of mounting mats” should be --the mounting mats-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 17: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the mounting system” should --the multi-component photovoltaic mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the system” should be --the multi-component photovoltaic mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 of the claim, it appears “At” should be lowercase.
With regard to claim 18-20: Line 1 of each claim, it appears the limitation “The multi-component mounting system” should be --The multi-component photovoltaic mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 18: Lines 1 and 2 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the system” should be --the multi-component photovoltaic mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 19: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the mounting system” should be --the multi-component photovoltaic mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 20: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the system” should be --the multi-component photovoltaic mounting system-- for consistency of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a mounting component in claim 1; a securing device in claim 1; and a plurality of securing devices in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 and 10-22 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 3: Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the one end” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --one end--.
With regard to claim 10: It’s unclear the limitation “an anchor” is referencing the previously recited anchors. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to –the anchors--.
With regard to claim 11: Line 1 of the claim, the limitation “the inter-row spacing” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 12: Line 1 of the claim, the limitation “the mounting mat” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Note that more than one mounting mat is recited in claim 1.
With regard to claim 15: Line 5 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a mounted PV module” is referencing the previously recited photovoltaic module.
With regard to claim 17: Lines 6, 8, 9 and 14 of the claim, it’s unclear if each instance of the limitation “a photovoltaic module” is referencing one another and/or the previously recited photovoltaic modules. Line 12 of the clam, it’s unclear if the limitations “a mounting summit, ridge, or valley” are referencing the previously recited at least one mounting summit, at least one mounting ridge and at least one mounting valley. Lines 13-14 of the claim, the limitation “the portions of a photovoltaic module” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 19: Lines 1-2 of the claim, the limitation “the inter-row spacing” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 21: The phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 22: Lines 1-2 of the claim, the limitation “the mounting summit” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 1-22 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) 1-13 and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurtz et al. (US 10,243,505 B1).
With regard to claim 1: Kurtz et al. discloses a photovoltaic (PV) mounting system (figs. 3, 5-6 and 12-13) comprising:
a mounting component (100) configured to receive a photovoltaic module (solar panel, 71) (figs. 2-4 and 14-15);
mounting mats (24) configured to be mounted to a roof (410) and receive the mounting component (100) (fig. 1-6; col. 4, lines 42-46); and,
a securing device (73-80 and 84), wherein the securing device secures the photovoltaic module onto the mounting component (figs. 16a-16d, 17 and 17a).
With regard to claim 2: Kurtz et al. discloses that the mounting component (100) further comprises a mounting ridge (100) with the mounting ridge (100) comprising a bottom and cross members (11), the cross members (11) received by the mounting mats (24) (figs. 5-6).
With regard to claim 3: Kurtz et al. discloses that the mounting ridge (100) further comprises:
a first mounting portion (at a first longitudinal end) raised to support the one end of a photovoltaic module (71) (figs. 2, 5-6, 14 and 17-18);
a second mounting portion (at an opposing second longitudinal end) to support a second, opposing end of a photovoltaic module (71) (figs. 2, 5-6, 14 and 17-18); and,
support members (20) running perpendicular to the cross members (11) to offer additional rigidity (figs. 5-6).
With regard to claim 4: The mounting ridge (100) of Kurtz et al. discloses a plurality of mounting ridges (100) capable being stackable with one another (figs. 3 and 5-6); .
With regard to claim 5: Kurtz et al. discloses that the mounting component (100), the mounting mats (24), and securing device are configured to allow bay-style photovoltaic mounting (figs. 1-3).
With regard to claim 6: Kurtz et al. discloses that the PV mounting system covering the roof (410) is capable of preventing the roof (410) from being damaged (fig. 1-2).
With regard to claim 7: The PV mounting system of Kurtz et al. is capable of use on flat roofs or commercial roofs (fig. 1-3).
With regard to claim 8: The photovoltaic modules (71) of Kurtz e t al. are capable of being mounted in either portrait or landscape configurations.
With regard to claim 9: The PV mounting system of Kurtz et al. is capable of receiving ballasts or anchors (adhesive layer, 30) to secure the system without need for penetrating the roof (col. 5, lines 43-47).
With regard to claim 10: The anchors (adhesive layer, 30) of Kurtz et al. may be configured to be adjusted in the north, east, south, and west directions.
With regard to claim 11: An inter-row spacing of a photovoltaic array of Kurtz et al. is adjustable by adjusting a position of the securing device (73-80 and 84) within the PV mounting system (figs. 1-4 and 16a-16e).
With regard to claim 12: The mounting mats (24) of Kurtz et al. are configured to be stackable with one another (figs. 5-6).
With regard to claim 13: The mounting mats (24) of Kurtz et al. are capable of being stackable with one another during installment of the PV mounting system to provide height adjustment for the mounting ridge.
With regard to claim 15: Kurtz et al. discloses that the securing device (73-80 and 84) comprises a module end clamp (73-80 and 84) (figs. 15a and 16a) comprising:
a rail mount component (73-74) configured to interface with the mounting component (100) (figs. 16a-16d); and,
a module securing component (76-80 and 84) configured to engage with the photovoltaic module (71) (figs. 15a and 16a).
With regard to claim 16: Kurtz et al. discloses the rail mount component (73-74) is configured to be adjustably received within a slot of the mounting ridge (100) (fig. 16e).
With regard to claim 17: Kurtz et al. discloses a fully-adjustable, bay-styled, multi-component photovoltaic mounting system capable of use on flat or commercial roofs (figs. 1-6 and 12-13), wherein the multi-component photovoltaic mounting system can receive photovoltaic modules (solar panels, 71) in either portrait or landscape configurations, the system comprising:
at least one mounting summit (a first of the sub-assemblies, 100), wherein the mounting summit is configured to receive a portion of a first of the photovoltaic modules (71) (figs. 1-6);
at least one mounting ridge (a second of the sub-assemblies, 100), wherein the mounting ridge is configured to receive a second portion of a second of the photovoltaic modules (71) (fig. 1-6);
at least one mounting valley (a third of the sub-assemblies, 100), wherein the mounting valley is configured to receive a third portion of a third of the photovoltaic modules (71) (figs. 1-6);
a plurality of mounting mats (24), wherein the mounting mats (24) are capable of receiving cross members (24) on the bottom of the at least one mounting summit, ridge, or valley; and,
a plurality of securing devices (73-80 and 84), wherein the securing devices (73-80 and 84) secure the portions of each photovoltaic module onto the at least one mounting summit, ridge, or valley (figs. 1-4).
With regard to claim 18: The multi-component mounting system of Kurtz et al. is capable of receiving ballasts or anchors to secure the system without need for penetrating the roof.
With regard to claim 19: An inter-row spacing of a photovoltaic array of Kurtz et al. is adjustable by adjusting a position of the securing device (73-80 and 84) within the PV mounting system (figs. 1-4 and 16a-16e).
With regard to claims 20-21: The multi-component photovoltaic mounting system of Kurtz et al. is capable of receiving a Universal Module Frame Mounting Kit or accessory mounting hardware (AMH) capable of mounting a variety of accessories, wherein the variety of accessories can be selected from a group consisting of microinverters, wind skirts, or fire skirts.
With regard to claim 22: Kurtz et al. discloses that the at least one mounting summit (a first of the sub-assemblies, 100) comprises hooks (at 50) for one of the photovoltaic modules to rest on before engaging a securing device (figs. 5-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The combination of all the elements of the claimed mounting system including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in particular the mounting mats comprising a mounting channel, configured to retain a cross member of the mounting component; stabilizing side arms configured to engage a top surface of a roof; a hollow middle channel configured to expand and contract to dissipate thermal expansion and seismic loads; a bottom stabilizing member configured to allow for a plurality of mounting mats to be stackable with one another; and, bottom side channels configured to expand and contract to dissipate thermal expansion and seismic loads is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
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 photovoltaic mounting systems.
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
Prosecution Insights