Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/515,134

SKIP RAIL SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Examiner
TRIGGS, ANDREW J
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Pegasus Solar Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
713 granted / 1074 resolved
+14.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
1115
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.9%
-11.1% vs TC avg
§112
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1074 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 9-19 in the reply filed on 15 December 2025 is acknowledged. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 9-14, 17, 19, 30 and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 8,656,658 to Schufflebotham. Regarding claim 9, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated below], a mounting system (100) [photovoltaic assembly (Column 5, Line 33)] for solar modules (104a-d) (Column 4, Line 50), the system (100) comprising: a pair of mounting rails (112a and 112c) configured to support a plurality of solar modules (104a and 104c) in a first row (A), wherein a first mounting rail (112a) is positioned under a first half of each of the solar modules (104a and 104c) in the first row (A), and wherein the second mounting rail (112c) of the pair is positioned under a second half of each of the solar modules (104a and 104c) in the first row (A); a third mounting rail (112e) configured to support a second row (B) of solar modules (104b and 104d), wherein the third mounting rail (112e) is positioned under a second half of each of the solar modules (104b and 104d) in the second row (B); and a skip rail splice (108a) [retainer (Column 5, Line 34)] configured to connect a top edge of a first solar module (104a) in the first row (A) to a bottom edge of a first solar module (104b) in the second row (B) [see retainer 212 in Figure 2B]. PNG media_image1.png 412 466 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the first mounting rail (112a) is parallel to the second mounting rail (112c), and wherein the second mounting rail (112c) is further parallel to the third mounting rail (112e). Regarding claim 11, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the first mounting rail (112a), the second mounting rail (112c), and the third mounting rail (112e) are parallel to a bottom edge of the first row (A) of solar modules. Regarding claim 12, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the skip rail splice [the retainer can be positioned around the corners of the modules (Column 5, Lines 41-42 and Column 7, Lines 11-13)] is further configured to connect two solar modules (104a and 104c) in the first row (A) to two solar modules (104b and 104d) in the second row (B). Regarding claim 13, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the skip rail splice [the retainer can be positioned around the corners of the modules (Column 5, Lines 41-42 and Column 7, Lines 11-13)] is further configured to connect one solar module (104a) in the first row (A) to two solar modules (104b and 104d) in the second row (B). Regarding claim 14, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], one or more clamps (108) [retainer (Column 5, Line 34)] configured to attach a solar module (104a) in the first row (A) to one or more of the first mounting rail (112a) or second mounting rail (112c) [see in Figure 2B how the clamp (212) attaches the solar modules (104a and 104b) to the mounting rail (102)]. Regarding claim 17, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the solar modules (104a and 104c) are arranged in landscape orientation along the pair of mounting rails (112a and 112c), and wherein the solar modules (104b and 104d) in the second row (B) are arranged in landscape orientation along the third mounting rail (112e). Regarding claim 19, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the first solar module (104a) and the second solar module (104b) connected by the skip rail splice (108a) are respectively at an end of the first row (A) and the second row (B), and further comprising a second skip rail splice (108b) configured to connect a top edge [see Figure 2B] of a third solar module (104c) in the first row (A) to a bottom edge [see Figure 2B] of a fourth solar module (104d) in the second row (B), wherein the third solar module (104c) and the fourth solar module (104d) are respective in a middle of the first row (A) and the second row (B) [if additional modules were in place]. Regarding claim 30, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the skip rail splice (108a) [the retainer can be positioned around the corners of the modules (Column 5, Lines 41-42 and Column 7, Lines 11-13)] is further configured to connect two solar modules (104a and 104c) in the first row (A) to one solar module (104c) in the second row (B). Regarding claim 32, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the edge splice (108c) is laterally displaced from the pair of mounting rails (112a and 112c) and the third mounting rail (102e). Regarding claim 33, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the pair of mounting rails (112a and 112c) extends in parallel along an interior portion of each of the solar modules (104a and 104c) in the first row (A). Regarding claim 34, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the third mounting rail (112e) is positioned along an interior portion of each of the solar modules (104b and 104d) in the second row (B). Regarding claim 35, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the third mounting rail (112e) is positioned within a half portion of the second row (B) farthest from the first row (A). Regarding claim 36, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], a length of a first edge (C) of one of the solar modules (104a) in the first row (A) is different [it is translated one panel width to the right] than a length of a first edge (D) of one of the solar modules (104d) in the second row (B). 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. Claims 15, 16, 18 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,656,658 to Schufflebotham in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2014/0026946 to West et al. Regarding claim 15, Schufflebotham teaches a mounting system with first, second and third mounting rails but does not teach one or more mounts are used to attach them to a roof surface. However, West teaches in Figure 1A, a mount (84) [hook (Paragraph 0169)] configured to attach a mounting rail [not labeled but as seen] to a roof structure (Paragraph 0169). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the photovoltaic assembly of Schufflebotham with attachment apparatus of West with a reasonable expectation of success because West teaches the hook secures the array to the structure of the roof (Paragraph 0227). Regarding claim 16, Schufflebotham teaches a mounting system for solar modules but he mounts his solar modules in landscape orientation, not portrait. However, West teaches that PV modules can be oriented in either portrait or landscape orientation (Paragraph 0253). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the photovoltaic assembly of Schufflebotham with attachment apparatus of West with a reasonable expectation of success because West teaches it would have been obvious to mount the PV modules in portrait orientation instead of landscape (Paragraph 0253). In the instant case, an array with portrait oriented solar modules would take up less space horizontally than an array with landscape oriented modules, thus being able to customize the array based on the size of the roof and maximize energy output of the array given the size of the roof. Regarding claim 18, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the solar modules (104b and 104d) in the second row (B) are in landscape orientation along the third mounting rail (112e) but does not teach the solar modules in the first row are in portrait orientation. However, West teaches that PV modules can be oriented in either portrait or landscape orientation (Paragraph 0253). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the photovoltaic assembly of Schufflebotham with attachment apparatus of West with a reasonable expectation of success because West teaches it would have been obvious to mount the PV modules in portrait orientation instead of landscape (Paragraph 0253). In the instant case, an array with portrait oriented solar modules would take up less space horizontally than an array with landscape oriented modules, thus being able to customize the array based on the size of the roof and maximize energy output of the array given the size of the roof. Regarding claim 31, Schufflebotham teaches in Figure 1B [annotated above], the solar modules (104a and 104c) in the first row (A) are in landscape orientation along the pair of mounting rails (112a and 112c) but does not teach the solar modules in the second row are in portrait orientation. However, West teaches that PV modules can be oriented in either portrait or landscape orientation (Paragraph 0253). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the photovoltaic assembly of Schufflebotham with attachment apparatus of West with a reasonable expectation of success because West teaches it would have been obvious to mount the PV modules in portrait orientation instead of landscape (Paragraph 0253). In the instant case, an array with portrait oriented solar modules would take up less space horizontally than an array with landscape oriented modules, thus being able to customize the array based on the size of the roof and maximize energy output of the array given the size of the roof. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (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. /ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601370
CABLE-DRIVEN TELESCOPIC BOOM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601168
CONCRETE DOWEL PLACEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584309
PROCESS FOR MAKING A PANELED WALL HAVING ABUTMENT JOINTS SEALED BY A DUAL GASKET ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577798
Container assembly and method for making same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571227
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE DOCKING SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+27.3%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1074 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month