DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges claim 9 has been amended and claims 2-8 and 33 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been considered but are moot because the amendment(s) have necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection.
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 19 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second solar module" on Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim depends from claim 9 that called this second solar module a first solar module in the second row.
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 9-15, 17, 30, 32 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 9,893,677 to Liu.
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated below], a mounting system (10) (Column 5, Lines 35-36) for solar modules [solar panels (Column 5, Line 35)], the system (10) comprising: a pair of mounting rails (24 and 24’) [mounting base (Column 9, Line 46)] configured to support a plurality of solar modules (17) (Column 6, Line 1) in a first row (A) along an interior portion of the respective solar modules (17), wherein a first mounting rail (24) of the pair is positioned under a first half of the interior portion of the solar modules (17) in the first row (A), and wherein a second mounting rail (24’) of the pair is positioned under a second half of the interior portion of the solar modules (17) in the first row (A); a third mounting rail (24”) configured to support a second row (B) of solar modules (17), wherein the third mounting rail (24”) is positioned under a second half of each of the solar modules (17) in the second row (B); and a skip rail splice (18) [mid clamp (Column 9, Line 40)] configured to connect a top edge of a first solar module (17) in the first row (A) to a bottom edge of a first solar module (17’) in the second row (B).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the first mounting rail (24) is parallel to the second mounting rail (24’), and wherein the second mounting rail (24’) is further parallel to the third mounting rail (24”).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the first mounting rail (24), the second mounting rail (24’), and the third mounting rail (24”) are parallel to a bottom edge of the first row (A) of solar modules (17).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the skip rail splice (18) is further configured to connect two solar modules (17) in the first row (A) to two solar modules (17) in the second row (B) [the lower right module being removed for illustrative clarity (Column 9, Lines 28-29)].
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the skip rail splice (18) is further configured to connect one solar module (17) in the first row (A) to two solar modules (17) in the second row (B).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], one or more clamps (21) (Column 5, Line 38) configured to attach a solar module (17) in the first row (A) to the first mounting rail (24) or the second mounting rail (24’).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], one or more mounts (26, Fig 19) [threaded fastener (Column 10, Lines 4-5)] configured to attach one or more of the first mounting rail (24), the second mounting rail (24’), and the third mounting rail (24”) to a roof surface (R) (Column 10, Lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 17, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the solar modules (17) in the first row (A) are arranged in landscape orientation along the pair of mounting rails (24 and 24’), and wherein the solar modules (17) in the second row (B) are arranged in landscape orientation along the third mounting rail (24”).
Regarding claim 30, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the skip rail splice (18) is further configured to connect two solar modules (17) in the first row (A) to one solar module (17) in the second row (B).
Regarding claim 32, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the edge splice (18) is laterally displaced from the pair of mounting rails (24 and 24’) and from the third mounting rail (24”).
Regarding claim 34, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the third mounting rail (24”) is positioned along an interior portion of each of the solar modules (17) in the second row (B).
Regarding claim 35, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the third mounting rail (24”) is positioned within a half portion of the second row (B) farthest from the first row (A).
Regarding claim 36, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], a length of the first edge of one of the solar modules (17) in the first row (A) is different [it is translated one panel width to the right] than a length of a first edge of one of the solar modules (17) 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 16, 18, 19 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 9,893,677 to Liu in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2014/0026946 to West et al.
Regarding claim 16, Liu 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 mounting device of Liu with the 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, Liu teaches a mounting system for solar modules but he mounts his solar modules in landscape orientation only, not portrait in the first row and landscape in the second row. 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 mounting device of Liu with the 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 19, Liu teaches in Figure 16 [annotated above], the first solar module (17) and the second solar module (17’) connected by the skip rail splice (18) are respectively at an end of the first row (A) and the second row (B), and further comprising a second skip rail splice (52) [splice (Column 10, Line 52)]. Liu does not teach the second skip rail splice connects a top edge of a third solar module in the first row to a bottom edge of a fourth solar module in the second row. However, West teaches in Figure 31, a second skip rail splice (50bb) configured to connect a top edge of a third solar module (211B) in a first row to a bottom edge of a fourth solar module (211C) in a second row, wherein the third solar module (211B) and the fourth solar module (211C) are respective in a middle of the first row and the second row. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the mounting device of Liu with the attachment apparatus of West with a reasonable expectation of success because the array of West has more modules than that of Liu, thus being able to produce more power.
Regarding claim 31, Liu teaches a mounting system for solar modules but he mounts his solar modules in landscape orientation only, not landscape in the first row and portrait in the second row. 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 mounting device of Liu with the 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights