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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 12th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 7-8 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Araki et al. in view of Mitsuhiko are maintained.
New rejections follow.
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.
Claim 25 is 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.
Regarding Claim 25, Applicant recites, “the flanges”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 15-16, 18, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (JP 2002-76416 A) in view of Mitsuhiko (JP 2004257100 A). Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are mapped to the English machine translation provided via the EPO website.
In view of Claim 1, Araki et al. discloses a photovoltaic PV system (Figure 7) comprising: a supporting structure (Figure 7, #2-#3); a plurality of bifacial PV modules arranged upright on the supporting structure (Paragraph 0012-0013); the supporting structure includes a plurality of posts that are configured to be secured on or in the ground (Figure 7, #2); horizontally extending cross-members secured to the posts, said cross-members in each case connecting two adjacent posts to each other (Figure 7, #3), and in each case two of the posts and two of the cross-members define a substantially rectangular mounting area in which at least one of the plurality of bifacial PV modules is arranged (See Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7, below).
Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7
PNG
media_image1.png
929
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Araki et al. does not disclose the posts that are configured as longitudinal profiles and the respective profile of each of the posts forms at least one of flanges at ends of the longitudinal profile or tabs which are formed at and defined in shape by an opening in the longitudinal profile, the at least one of the flanges or the tabs extend in a direction of a plane formed by the PV modules, the cross-members are flatly secured to holding surfaces, which are provided by the at least one of the flanges or the tabs, respectively, the cross-members are narrower than the posts, and the at least one of the flanges or the tabs are correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the longitudinal profile by an offset towards the plane.
Mitsuhiko discloses posts configured as longitudinal profiles (Fig. 1a-b, #11), and the respective profile of each of the posts form flanges at ends of the longitudinal profile forms flanges at ends of the longitudinal profile that extend in a direction of a plane formed by the PV modules, cross-members that are flatly secured to holding surfaces provided by the flanges such that the cross-members are narrower than the posts (Fig. 3, #2 & Fig. 7, #4 – Page 3, Lines 20-25), and the flanges are correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the longitudinal profile by an offset towards the plane (See Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, below).
Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b
PNG
media_image2.png
910
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mitsuhiko discloses tabs which are formed by openings in the longitudinal profile, the tabs are formed at an defined in shape by an opening in the longitudinal profile, the tabs extend in a direction of a plane formed by the PV modules, the cross-members are flatly secured to holding surfaces which are provided by the tabs respectively, the cross-members are narrower than the posts (Fig. 3, #2 & Fig. 7, #4 – Page 3, Lines 20-25) and the tabs are offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the longitudinal profile by an offset towards the plane (See Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, below).
Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b
PNG
media_image3.png
910
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mitsuhiko discloses posts that are configured as longitudinal profiles which have holding surfaces correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the posts and that are formed as tabs at an opening in the longitudinal profile and that this method of attachment provides a clean looking fence (Fig. 1, #12 – Page 3, Lines 1-12). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Mitsuhiko’s configuration in Araki et al. photovoltaic system for the advantages of having a cleaner looking photovoltaic fence system.
In view of Claim 2, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Araki et al. teaches that the posts are oriented substantially vertically (See Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7, above).
In view of Claim 4, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Araki et al. teaches that the active surface of the PV modules are arranged at a distance from at least one of the posts or the cross-members such that at least up to an angle of incidence of 20°, shading of the active surface of the posts is prevented and at least up to an angle of incidence of 25° shading of the active surface of the cross-members is prevented (Paragraph 0028).
In view of Claim 5, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Araki et al. teaches that the active surface of the upper left PV module (Figure 7, upper left module) and the active surfaces of the middle right PV module (Figure 7, middle right module) are arranged asymmetrically at a distance from one of the other PV modules respective cross member (Figure 7, #3).
In view of Claim 6, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mitsuhiko teaches holding surfaces formed in pairs in order to grip said cross-member which has been pushed between the holding surfaces on both sides (Fig. 3, #2 & Fig. 7, #4 – Page 3, Lines 20-25).
In view of Claim 7, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mitsuhiko teaches that the posts include holding sections (Fig. 1a, #11, outside surface of the post facing away and in the same direction as the plane of PV modules shown above in annotated Fig. 1b, of Mitsuhiko). Mitsuhiko teaches the posts is formed are formed with an omega profile (Fig. 2b, #211 or Fig. 1a, #11).
In view of Claim 8, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Mitsuhiko discloses the opening in the posts comprises a plug-through opening (Fig. 1b, the mounting groove that extends along the longitudinal post), wherein two cross-members are placed in this plug-through opening in one said post (Fig. 3 & 7, cross-members 2, and 4 respectively are both inserted into the mounting groove).
In view of Claim 9, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mitsuhiko teaches the posts have a profile with a C-shaped at the sides of each post which each comprise portions of holding sections (Fig. 1b, top and bottom sections of the post form a C-shape).
In view of Claim 10, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mitsuhiko teaches that the plurality of bifacial PV modules are secured to the cross-members via holding elements which include groove sections into which a border of the respective PV module is plugged or is pluggable (Fig. 6, #3), each holding element has two opposite groove sections (Fig. 6b, #33 & #35).
In view of Claim 11, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Mitsuhiko teaches that the holding elements each have a cross-sectional tapered portion (Fig. 1b #12 tapers from a wider to a smaller element at the distal ends) that is pluggable or plugged into a plug through opening which is formed on at least one of the cross-members as far as a defined plug-in depth such that a contact surface on the holding element lies flatly against the cross-member (Fig. 6b, #3 & Page 3, Lines 24-32).
In view of Claim 15, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Araki et al. teaches a plurality of PV modules are arranged one above another in a vertical direction (Figure 7).
In view of Claim 16, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Araki et al. teaches horizontally adjacent PV modules are arranged offset with respect to one another in a vertical direction (Figure 7 – the lower left PV module is offset from the upper right PV module).
In view of Claim 18, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Mitsuhiko teaches the holding surfaces are provided as flanges at ends of the profile (Fig. 6b, they form flanges at the ends of the posts, see Fig. 1b).
In view of Claim 20, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mitsuhiko teaches the holding surfaces further comprise flanges on the longitudinal profile (Fig. 1b, #12 forms the flanges).
In view of Claim 21, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Araki et al. teaches that at least one of the flanges runs in a direction of a plane which is formed by the PV modules and runs offset w/ respect to said plane and the at least one flange is offset to an inside in a direction towards that plane in relation to outer edges of the longitudinal profile of the respective post (See Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7, below).
Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7
PNG
media_image4.png
586
943
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 22, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mitsuhiko teaches a shape of each said tab is predetermined by a shape of the associated opening (See Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, below).
Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b
PNG
media_image5.png
386
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 23, Araki et al. discloses a photovoltaic PV system (Figure 7) comprising: a supporting structure (Figure 7, #2-#3); a plurality of bifacial PV modules arranged upright on the supporting structure (Paragraph 0012-0013); the supporting structure includes a plurality of posts that are configured to be secured on or in the ground (Figure 7, #2); cross-members secured to the posts, said cross-members in each case connecting two adjacent posts to each other (Figure 7, #3), and in each case two of the posts and two of the cross-members define a substantially rectangular mounting area in which at least one of the plurality of bifacial PV modules is arranged (See Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7, below).
Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7
PNG
media_image1.png
929
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Araki discloses the post comprise holding surfaces formed on the posts to which an associated one of the cross-members is flatly secured to and the cross members are narrower than the posts and the holding surfaces are correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the post (See Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7, below). Araki teaches that the posts are configured as longitudinal profiles and at least some of the holding surfaces are formed by surfaces in the longitudinal profile of the posts (See Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7, the interior longitudinal profile of the posts are the holding surfaces).
Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7
PNG
media_image6.png
455
729
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Araki et al. does not disclose the posts that are configured as longitudinal profiles such that holding surfaces are correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the plurality of posts, wherein the holding surfaces are formed by surfaces in the longitudinal profile in said posts and the holding surfaces are separated from respective ones of the outer surfaces of the posts by outer end face portions of the posts and said end face portions respectively extend between the respective outer surface and the respective holding surface.
Mitsuhiko discloses posts that are configured as longitudinal profiles which have holding surfaces correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the posts (Fig. 1b, #12), and that the holding surfaces are formed by surfaces in the longitudinal profile in said posts (Fig. 1b, C, the holding surfaces #12 are formed by the recessed surface of the longitudinal profile), wherein the holding surfaces are separated from respective outs of the outer surfaces of the posts by outer end face portions of the posts and that this method of attachment provides a clean looking fence (See Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, below – Page 3, Lines 1-12). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the posts that are configured as longitudinal profiles such that holding surfaces are correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the plurality of posts, wherein the holding surfaces are formed by surfaces in the longitudinal profile in said posts and the holding surfaces are separated from respective ones of the outer surfaces of the posts by outer end face portions of the posts and said end face portions respectively extend between the respective outer surface and the respective holding surface as disclosed by Mitsuhiko in Araki et al. photovoltaic system for the advantages of having a cleaner looking photovoltaic fence system.
Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b
PNG
media_image7.png
1050
834
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 24, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 23. Mitsuhiko teaches that the surfaces in the longitudinal profile forming the holding surfaces are tabs/flanges (See Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, above).
In view of Claim 25, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 23. Mitsuhiko discloses the holding surfaces are formed as flanges on the longitudinal profile of the posts and extend in a direction of a plane formed by the PV modules and are offset inwardly in a directions towards said plane in relation to the outer surfaces of the posts.
Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b
PNG
media_image2.png
910
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 26, Araki et al. discloses a photovoltaic PV system (Figure 7) comprising: a supporting structure (Figure 7, #2-#3); a plurality of bifacial PV modules arranged upright on the supporting structure (Paragraph 0012-0013); the supporting structure includes a plurality of posts that are configured to be secured on or in the ground (Figure 7, #2); cross-members secured to the posts, said cross-members in each case connecting two adjacent posts to each other (Figure 7, #3), and in each case two of the posts and two of the cross-members define a substantially rectangular mounting area in which at least one of the plurality of bifacial PV modules is arranged (See Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7, below).
Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7
PNG
media_image1.png
929
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Araki discloses the post comprise holding surfaces formed on the posts to which an associated one of the cross-members is flatly secured to and the cross members are narrower than the posts and the holding surfaces are correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the post (See Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7, below). Araki teaches that the posts are configured as longitudinal profiles and at least some of the holding surfaces are formed by surfaces in the longitudinal profile of the posts (See Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7, the interior longitudinal profile of the posts are the holding surfaces).
Annotated Araki et al. Figure 7
PNG
media_image6.png
455
729
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Araki et al. does not disclose that the posts are formed from longitudinal profiles having an omega shape, Z-shaped or S-shaped basic chape at least in a holding section of each of the posts and the holding surfaces are provided as flanges at ends of the longitudinal profile of the posts.
Mitsuhiko discloses posts are formed from longitudinal profiles having an omega shape, Z-shaped or S-shaped basic chape at least in a holding section of each of the posts (Fig. 2b, #211) and the holding surfaces are provided as flanges at ends of the longitudinal profile of the posts (Fig. 1, #12 – Page 3, Lines 1-12) and that this method of attachment provides a clean looking fence (See Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, below – Page 3, Lines 1-12). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate posts that are formed from longitudinal profiles having an omega shape, Z-shaped or S-shaped basic chape at least in a holding section of each of the posts and the holding surfaces are provided as flanges at ends of the longitudinal profile of the posts as disclosed by Mitsuhiko in Araki et al. photovoltaic system for the advantages of having a cleaner looking photovoltaic fence system.
Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b
PNG
media_image5.png
386
404
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (JP 2002-76416 A) in view of Mitsuhiko (JP 2004257100 A) in view of Wolter (US 2016/0099673 A1). Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are mapped to the English machine translation provided via the EPO website.
In view of Clam 3, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Araki et al. does not disclose that each of the posts are divided at least into a securing section which is connected to the ground and a holding section which is connected thereto and extends above the securing station.
Wolter discloses that posts in a similar system are divided into a securing section which is connected to the ground (Figure 4, #53 – portion encased in concrete) and a holding section which is connected thereto and extends above the securing station (Figure 4, #53 – portion above ground). Wolter discloses that posts add and supplement the structural integrity and stiffness of the overall system (Paragraph 0039). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ensure that the posts are divided at least into a securing section which is connected to the ground and a holding section which is connected thereto and extends above the securing station as disclosed by Wolter in Araki et al. photovoltaic system for the advantages of adding and supplementing the structural integrity and stiffness of the overall system.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (JP 2002-76416 A) in view of Mitsuhiko (JP 2004257100 A) in view of SUNMetrix “Solar Panel Size for Residential, Commercial and Portable Applications” in view of Flaherty et al. (US 2013/0276304 A1). Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are mapped to the English machine translation provided via the EPO website.
In view of Claim 12, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Araki et al. discloses that an open space is kept free between the ground and a lowermost cross-member (Figure 7, lowermost #3) but does not disclose rows of the PV system are arranged at a distance from one another to provide an open cultivation space having a width of at least 6 meters between the rows.
SUNMetrix discloses that a typical width for a commercial or residential solar panel is 39 inches and that aside from the power needs used to determine the number of solar panels, you must also consider the physical size dimensions, and that most solar panels designed for residential use are 39 inches wide (Page 4 – What are the dimensions of residential solar panels?). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the panels of Araki et al. (Figure 7, #1) be at least 39 inches in “height” as SUNMetrix discloses that most solar panels designed for residential and commercial use are utilizing this dimension.
Flaherty et al. discloses that to reduce the possibly of panel cell shading the spacing between adjacent rows of mounting surfaces can be two times the height of the solar panel (Figure 31 & Paragraph 0036 & 0064). Araki et al. module is at least 3 meters in height, taking into account 3 panels being at least 39 inches wide and stacked upon one another (Figure 7, #1) and the intervening structural elements. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the rows of the PV system of Araki et al. have at least 6 meters of spacing between rows for the advantages of reducing the possibility of panel cell shading.
In regards to the limitation that this distance provides “an open cultivation space”, it is the Examiner’s interpretation that rows set apart by the minimum distance of six meters would inherently provide “an open cultivation space”.
In view of Claim 13, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Araki et al. teaches the PV modules substantially form a plane with the supporting structure (Figure 7).
In view of Claim 14, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Araki et al. teaches that the PV system can comprise a plurality of rows (Paragraph 0044) but does not disclose that the rows are arranged at a distance from one another to provide an open space between the rows is at least three times a maximum height of an active surface of the PV system.
SUNMetrix discloses that a typical width for a commercial or residential solar panel is 39 inches and that aside from the power needs used to determine the number of solar panels, you must also consider the physical size dimensions, and that most solar panels designed for residential use are 39 inches wide (Page 4 – What are the dimensions of residential solar panels?). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the panels of Araki et al. (Figure 7, #1) have a maximum “height” of an active surface of the panel of 39 inches as SUNMetrix discloses that most solar panels designed for residential and commercial use are utilizing this dimension.
Flaherty et al. discloses that to reduce the possibly of panel cell shading the spacing between adjacent rows of mounting surfaces can be two times the height of the solar panel (Figure 31 & Paragraph 0036 & 0064). Araki et al. module is at least 3 meters in height, taking into account 3 panels being at least 39 inches wide and stacked upon one another (Figure 7, #1) and the intervening structural elements. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the rows of the PV system of Araki et al. have at least 6 meters of spacing between rows for the advantages of reducing the possibility of panel cell shading.
This configuration result in a six meter spacing while the maximum height of an active surface of the PV system is 39 inches as disclosed by SUNMetrix.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (JP 2002-76416 A) in view of Mitsuhiko (JP 2004257100 A) in view of Thomas (US 2011/0005583 A1). Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are mapped to the English machine translation provided via the EPO website.
In view of Claim 17, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Araki et al. does not disclose that the PV modules are suspended on the supporting structure so as to be pivotable about an axis of rotation which extends approximately parallel to the cross-member.
Thomas discloses PV modules are suspended on the supporting structure so as to be pivotable about an axis of rotation which extends approximately parallel to the cross-member (Figs. 1-3, #122 suspended on cross-members 104, 106, and 108). Thomas discloses that this configuration reduces the risk of damage due to wind (Abstract & Paragraph 0004). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the suspended configuration of Thomas on the cross members of Araki et al. such that the PV modules are suspended on the supporting structure so as to be pivotable about an axis of rotation which extends approximately parallel to the cross-member for the advantages of reducing the risk of damage due to wind.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (JP 2002-76416 A) in view of Mitsuhiko (JP 2004257100 A) in view of Flaherty et al. (US 2013/0276304 A1). Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are mapped to the English machine translation provided via the EPO website.
In view of Claim 19, Araki et al. and Mitsuhiko are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Araki et al. teaches the PV modules substantially form a plane with the supporting structure (Figure 7) and that the PV modules are arranged in a plurality of rows (Paragraph 0044) but does not disclose that they are spaced apart.
Flaherty et al. discloses that to reduce the possibly of panel cell shading the panels should be spaced apart such that the spacing between adjacent rows of mounting surfaces can be two times the height of the solar panel (Figure 31 & Paragraph 0036 & 0064). Araki et al. module is at least 3 meters in height, taking into account 3 panels being at least 39 inches wide and stacked upon one another (Figure 7, #1) and the intervening structural elements. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the rows of the PV system of Araki et al. be spaced apart for the advantages of reducing the possibility of panel cell shading.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Mitsuhiko does not disclose at least one of the flanges or the tabs are correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the longitudinal profile by an offset towards the plane defined by the PV module. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Mitsuhiko discloses posts configured as longitudinal profiles (Fig. 1a-b, #11), and the respective profile of each of the posts form flanges at ends of the longitudinal profile forms flanges at ends of the longitudinal profile that extend in a direction of a plane formed by the PV modules, cross-members that are flatly secured to holding surfaces provided by the flanges such that the cross-members are narrower than the posts (Fig. 3, #2 & Fig. 7, #4 – Page 3, Lines 20-25), and the flanges are correspondingly offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the longitudinal profile by an offset towards the plane (See Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, below).
Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b
PNG
media_image2.png
910
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mitsuhiko discloses tabs which are formed by openings in the longitudinal profile, the tabs are formed at an defined in shape by an opening in the longitudinal profile, the tabs extend in a direction of a plane formed by the PV modules, the cross-members are flatly secured to holding surfaces which are provided by the tabs respectively, the cross-members are narrower than the posts (Fig. 3, #2 & Fig. 7, #4 – Page 3, Lines 20-25) and the tabs are offset inwardly in relation to outer surfaces of the longitudinal profile by an offset towards the plane (See Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, below).
Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b
PNG
media_image3.png
910
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Mitsuhiko does not disclose the cross-members are flatly secured to holding surfaces which are provided by the at least one of the flanges or the tabs. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Mitsuhiko discloses cross-members that are flatly secured to holding surfaces provided by the flanges such that the cross-members are narrower than the posts (Fig. 3, #2 & Fig. 7, #4 – Page 3, Lines 20-25). Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the separate longitudinal profile 3 which was not relied upon in the rejection of record. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the cross-member is already inserted into the holding surfaces of the flanges (Fig. 4, only #2 is shown but its inserted before element 3, which Applicant’s arguments rely on). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Mitsuhiko does not disclose that tabs which are formed at and defined in shape by an opening in the longitudinal profile. As can be seen above in annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, the absences of material in the longitudinal profile forms said tabs. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that modified Araki does not disclose that the tabs and flanges are offset inwardly in a direction towards the plane of the PV modules. The Examiner respectfully disagreed and points out that this feature is shown above in both versions of Annotated Mitsuhiko Fig. 1b, above. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726