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 .
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldstein (U.S. Patent No. 7,028,960).
Regarding claim 1, Goldstein discloses a clamping arrangement (Figs. 1A-5B) capable of being used for a solar module, the clamping arrangement comprising an assembly having at least one longitudinally extended guide rail (1, Figs. 1-2) which is C-shaped in cross-section (Fig. 2) and has a length s, and first and second holders (19, Figs. 3-5B), the first and second holders are arranged at the longitudinal ends of the guide rail (Figs. 1A-1B, 3) and are fixed in an inner space of the guide rail; each of the first and second holders is L-shaped, having a first, extended, straight section of length l and width b, and a second section angled thereto and having a gripping section (41) that is adapted to positively grip a frame of the solar module; the first and second holders (19) and the guide rail (1) have openings (approximate 12, Figs. 3 and 5A) for fastening elements for fixing the holders to the guide rail in a secured position; and the inner space of the guide rail has a guide (spaces defined by 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15; Fig. 2) for accommodating the first section of the first and second holders.
Regarding claim 2, Goldstein discloses wherein the guide has two U-shaped grooves (upper and lower) which are spaced apart from each other and define openings that face towards each other, and each of the grooves has a width w and a distance d from groove bottom to groove bottom, so that the first sections of the guide rail are adapted to be displaceably guided in the guide (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Goldstein discloses wherein a first side wall (7) of the two U-shaped grooves is formed jointly by an outer wall of the guide rail and a second side wall (9, 11) is formed in each case as a separate, rib-shaped projection of height h, which is arranged at a parallel distance w from the first side wall (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Goldstein discloses a position of the holders (19) when arranged in the guide is securable relative to the guide rail via fasteners (12) arranged in correspondingly overlapping ones of the openings in both the guide rail and the first and second holders (Fig. 3).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldstein (U.S. Patent No. 7,028,960).
Regarding claim 4, Goldstein discloses wherein for the second side walls (9 and 11) as set forth above having a h, but does not disclose that w < h < 5w and 2h << d and d <≈ b. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second side wall wherein the w < h < 5w and 2h << d and d <≈ b, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having dimensions conducive to helping guide the first and second holders.
Regarding claim 6, Goldstein discloses the opening in the first holder (approximate 12), but does not disclose the opening as being is an elongated hole. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fate of the claimed invention to have an opening that was of any suitable shape including an elongated hole to allow for variances, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from altering the shape and size of a hole.
Regarding claim 11, Goldstein discloses the guide rail (1) as set forth above comprises an extruded profile with a uniform cross-section (Figs. 1-2) being composed of a metal material, but does not disclose the material as being aluminum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an extruded profile that was made of a light-weight, durable material such as aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using a metallic material over another that was lighter and provided the desired strength and durability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a clamping arrangement comprising an assembly having one longitudinally extended guide rail having a C-shaped cross-section, first and second L-shaped holders arranged at the longitudinal ends of the guide rail, a gripping section, wherein the first and second holder, the guide rail having openings, the inner space of the guild rail having a guide being U-shaped grooves spaced apart form each other and defined by rib-shaped projections and the outer wall of the guide rail, wherein the guild rail has a first eyelet which ext6nds at right angles from the first side wall into the inner space of the guide rail as recited in claim 7 in combination with claims 1-3 in its entirety; or a mounting rail that is designed to be attached horizontally to a load-bearing substructure and the clamping arrangement being dimensioned to grip an edge region or fame of a solar module as recited in claim 12 in its entirety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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 Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633