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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 13-16 and 20 are amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application; claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-13 are being considered for directing toward an elected invention I and elected species ID, shown in fig. 34, in response 12/16/2026 to the restriction requirement 10/22/2025; claims 3, 7 and 14-20 are withdrawn for directing toward non-elected invention II and non-elected species IA (fig. 3), non-elected species IB (fig. 4) and non-elected species IC (fig. 13) in response 12/16/2026 to the restriction requirement 10/22/2025.
Previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection of elected species ID is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claim 1 recites “wherein both the second portion and the third portion extend along a first direction, and the second portion is fixedly connected to a back surface of the laminate, the first direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the photovoltaic module” in lines 6-12. Applicant has no support for the elected species ID, fig. 34, to have such claimed configuration. Applicant points to the non-elected species IA, fig. 3, to show the support for the elected species ID, fig. 34. However, the elected species ID, fig. 34, does not have the configuration to have the second portion (322) fixedly connected to a back surface of the laminate. On the contrary, the configuration of the elected species ID, fig. 34, includes a recess feature on first portion (321) so that the first portion (321) is fixedly connected to a back surface of the laminate as shown in fig. 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
313
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 4-6 and 8-13 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1 and for reciting features of elected species ID, fig. 34, that are not included in the frame recited in claim 1 (or non-elected species IA, fig. 3).
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 4-6 and 8 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.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and recites “a first extension portion” and “a second extension portion” that are features of elected species ID, fig. 34; while claim 1 is amended to have the configuration of non-elected species IA, fig. 3. As such, it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 5 depends on claims 1 and 4, and recites “a first limiting portion” and “a second limiting portion” which are features of elected species ID, fig. 34; while claim 1 is amended to have the configuration of non-elected species IA, fig. 3. As such, it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and recites “the first portion and the back surface of the laminate are bonded and fixed through the connecting adhesive” in lines 4-5; while claim 1 is amended to recite “the second portion is fixedly connected to a back surface of the laminate” in lines 6-7. The recitation in claim 6 is conflicted with the recitations in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and recites “the first portion and the laminate are bonded and fixed through the connecting adhesive, wherein along the third direction, at least part of the first portion is recessed in a direction away from the photovoltaic module to form an accommodating groove” in lines 1-4, while claim 1 is amended to recite “both the second portion and the third portion extend along a first direction, and the second portion is fixedly connected to a back surface of the laminate, and the third direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the of the photovoltaic module” in lines 6-12. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are directed toward the configuration of the frame of elected species ID, fig. 34; while claim 1 is amended to direct toward a completely different configuration of the frame, or the frame shown in non-elected species IA, fig. 3.
As such, claims 4-6 and 8 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, and fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-2, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR 2010005608, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a photovoltaic module comprising a laminate (50/51, see figs. 1 and 5) and a frame (see C-groove space frame 90) comprising a first portion, a second portion and a third portion (see annotated fig. 5 below); wherein the second portion and the third portion are respectively connected to two ends of the first portion, both the second portion and the third portion extend along a first direction (or the horizontal direction), and the second portion is fixedly connected to a back surface of the laminate (50/51, see annotated fig. 5 below, also see figs. 1-4, 6-10). The first direction (or horizontal direction) is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the photovoltaic module (or vertical direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
391
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above, and teaches the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion define an accommodating space (see the C-shaped groove 10 in annotated fig. 5 above, also see figs. 1-4, and 6-10), and along a distribution direction of the second portion and the third portion, and opening is provided between the second portion and the third portion, and the accommodating space is communicated with outside through the opening (see annotated fig. 5 above, also see figs. 1-4 and 6-10).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Park discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above, and teaches the frame comprising two first frames and two second frames as claimed (see fig. 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al. (JP 2014011196, see machine translation) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 204180001, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module comprising a laminate (see solar cell module 11, figs. 1-9, 14-18) and a frame (see rail 12, fig. 1-9 and 14-18) comprising a first portion (see main plate 12a and step portions 12g/12h, see figs. 7-8 and 14-16), a second portion and a third portion (see side plates 12b); wherein the second portion and the third portion (12b) are respectively connected to two ends of the first portion (12a/12g) and extending along a first direction.
Naito et al. show the first portion (or the main plate 12a/g/h) attaching to the back surface of the laminate, and does not show the second portion (or one of the side plates 12b) is fixedly connected to a back surface of the laminate such that the first direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the photovoltaic module.
Zhang shows a frame (2, fig. 1) having a second portion (or a side plate) is fixedly connected to a back surface of the laminate (1, fig. 1) such that the first direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the photovoltaic module (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic module of Naito et al. by having the second portion (or a side plate 12b) fixedly connected to a back surface of the laminate such that the first direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the photovoltaic module as taught by Zhang, because Zhang teaches such structure (or the photovoltaic module) is simple, easy to assemble and disassemble, multiple sets of solar panels can be install at the same time and perform independently, thereby improving installation efficiency and effectively reducing labor intensity and costs (see [0019] of the translation of Zhang )
Regarding claim 2, modified Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above, wherein Naito et al. teaches the first portion (12a/12g), the second portion and the third portion (12b) define an accommodating space with an opening (12e) between the second portion and the third portion (12b) and the accommodating space is communicated with outside through the opening (12e, see figs. 5-8 and 14-16).
Regarding claim 4, modified Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 2 above, wherein Naito et al. teaches a first extension portion extends towards interior of the accommodating space and a second extension extends towards interior of the accommodating space as claimed (see the horizontal portion of section 12c, figs. 7-8 and 14-16).
Regarding claim 5, modified Naito et al. discloses photovoltaic module as in claim 4 above, wherein Naito et al. teaches a first limiting portion and a second limiting portion as claimed (see the vertical portions of the section 12c, figs. 7-8 and 14-16).
Regarding claim 6, modified Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above, wherein Naito et al. teaches including a connecting adhesive (B, see figs. 6 and 14), wherein the first portion (12a/12g) and the back surface of the laminate (11) are bonded and fixed through the connecting adhesive (B, see figs. 6 and 14).
Regarding claim 8, modified Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 6 above, wherein Naito et al. teaches the first portion (12a/g) and the laminate (11) are bonded and fixed through the connecting adhesive (B), and wherein along the third direction (or the downward direction), at least part of the first portion is recessed (see the recess between two step portion 12g or 12g/h) in a direction away from the photovoltaic module (11) to form an accommodating groove, and the accommodating groove is configured to accommodate at least part of the connecting adhesive (B, see figs. 6-7, 14 and 17-18).
Claim(s) 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20100056084) as applied to claims 1, 9 and 11 above, in view of Kondo et al. (JP 3674234, see machine translation) or Gorny (US 2002/0399854).
Regarding claims 10 and 12-13, Park discloses a photovoltaic device as in claims 1, 9 and 11 above, and teaches the frame including two first frame and two second frame (see fig. 1 of the original document of Park).
Park does not disclose including reinforcing frame (s) comprising at least one third frame.
Kondo et al. and Gorny et al. teaches the frame including the reinforcing frame (or ribs 6 in figs. 5-6 of Kondo et al. or cross rails shown in figs. 2A, 12-15 of Gorny) comprising at least one third frame (see vertical rib 6 in fig. 5 or diagonal rib 6 in fig. 6 or Kondo et al. or vertical cross rail or diagonal cross rail shown in figs. 13-14) located between the first frames (or the long side frames) or at least one fourth frames (see horizontal/diagonal ribs 6 shown in figs. 4-6 of Kondo, or horizontal/diagonal cross rails shown in figs. 2A, 12-15 of Gorny et al.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Park by including one or more reinforcing frame as taught by Kondo et al. or Gorny et al., because Kondo et al. teaches using such frame would protect the laminate (or panel) with increased mechanical strength (see [0003] and [0008] of the translation oof Kondo et al.) and Gorny teaches such frame would provide structural rigidity and to allow the laminate to be mounted (see abstract, [0052-0054], [0073])
Modified Park does not explicitly disclose a minimum distance between the third frame and the first frame to be 300mm to 450mm, or between the fourth frame and the second frame to be 300mmm to 450mm; nor do they teach the distance between adjacent third/fourth frames ranges from 200mm to 500mm.
However, it would have It would have been apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange parts so that minimum distance between the third frame and the first frame to be 300mm to 450mm, or between the fourth frame and the second frame to be 300mmm to 450mm; and the distance between adjacent third/fourth frames ranges from 200mm to 500mm to ensure sufficient mechanical strength and structural rigidity is provided to the frame. In addition, such modification is a mere rearrangement of the system parts that would not modify the operation of the system, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Naito et al. (JP 2014-11196) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kondo et al. (JP 3674234, see machine translation) or Gorny (US 2002/0399854).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, modified Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above.
Modified Naito et al. does not disclose the frame comprising two first frames, two second frames as claimed.
Kondo discloses a frame comprising two first frames (see long side frames 3c-d, figs. 4-6), two second frames (see short side frames 3a and 3b), reinforcing frames (or ribs 6, see figs. 1 and 4-6); wherein the first two frames (3c and 3d) are arranged opposite to each other along the first direction (or the horizontal direction in figs. 4-6) and parallel to the second direction (or vertical direction in figs. 4-6), and the minimum distance between the first frame and the edges of the laminate is 0 since the frame is overlapping with the laminate (2, see figs. 1-7 and 9) as claimed in claim 9; the two second frames (3a and 3b) are arranged opposite to each other along the second direction and parallel to the first direction, and the minimum distance between the two second frames and the corresponding edge of the laminate (2) is 0 since the frame is overlapping with the laminate (2) as claimed (see figs. 1-7 and 9)
Similar to Kondo et al., Gorny discloses a frame comprising two first frames (‘01 and ‘02) and two second frames (’03 and ’04), and reinforcing frames (or cross rails), and the distance between the frame and the laminate (’05) is 0 (see figs. 2A, 12-15).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic module of modified Naito et al. by incorporating the two first frame and the two second frames as taught by Kondo et al. or Gorny into the frame of Naito et al. or using the frame comprising two first frames, two second frames and reinforcing frames as taught by Kondo et al. or Gorny, because Kondo et al. teaches using such frame would protect the laminate (or panel) with increased mechanical strength (see [0003] and [0008] of the translation oof Kondo et al.) and Gorny teaches such frame would provide structural rigidity and to allow the laminate to be mounted (see abstract, [0052-0054], [0073]).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, modified Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic device as in claims 9 and 11 above, the frames (12) of Naito et al. located in the middle or became reinforcing frames. In addition, both Kondo et al. and Gorny et al. teaches the frame including the reinforcing frame (or ribs 6 in figs. 5-6 of Kondo et al. or cross rails shown in figs. 2A, 12-15 of Gorny) comprising at least one third frame (see vertical rib 6 in fig. 5 or diagonal rib 6 in fig. 6 or Kondo et al. or vertical cross rail or diagonal cross rail shown in figs. 13-14) located between the first frames (or the long side frames) or at least one fourth frames (see frames 12 of Naito et al., horizontal/diagonal ribs 6 shown in figs. 4-6 of Kondo, or horizontal/diagonal cross rails shown in figs. 2A, 12-15 of Gorny et al.).
Modified Naito et al. does not explicitly disclose a minimum distance between the third frame and the first frame to be 300mm to 450mm, or between the fourth frame and the second frame to be 300mmm to 450mm; nor do they teach the distance between adjacent third/fourth frames ranges from 200mm to 500mm.
However, it would have It would have been apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange parts so that minimum distance between the third frame and the first frame to be 300mm to 450mm, or between the fourth frame and the second frame to be 300mmm to 450mm; and the distance between adjacent third/fourth frames ranges from 200mm to 500mm to ensure sufficient mechanical strength and structural rigidity is provided to the frame. In addition, such modification is a mere rearrangement of the system parts that would not modify the operation of the system, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 13, modified Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above, wherein Naito et al. each frame (12) comprising the first portion, the second portion and the third portion (see claim 1 above)
Naito et al. does not disclose the frame comprises two first frames and two second frames, and the first frames and the second frames; wherein the first frames extend along a second direction, the second direction being parallel to a length direction of the photovoltaic module, the second frames extend along the first direction; the two first frames are fixedly connected to the two second frames so that the frame forms a rectangular structure, the frame further comprises a reinforcing frame, and the reinforcing frame comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion, and along the first direction, two ends of the reinforcing frame are fixedly connected to the first frames respectively, and along the second direction, the reinforcing frame is arranged between the two second frames.
Kondo discloses a frame comprising two first frames (see long side frames 3c-d, figs. 4-6), two second frames (see short side frames 3a and 3b), reinforcing frames (or ribs 6, see figs. 1 and 4-6); wherein the first two frames (3c and 3d) are arranged opposite to each other along the first direction (or the horizontal direction in figs. 4-6) and parallel to the second direction (or vertical direction in figs. 4-6), and the minimum distance between the first frame and the edges of the laminate is 0 since the frame is overlapping with the laminate (2, see figs. 1-7 and 9) as claimed in claim 9; the two second frames (3a and 3b) are arranged opposite to each other along the second direction and parallel to the first direction, and the minimum distance between the two second frames and the corresponding edge of the laminate (2) is 0 since the frame is overlapping with the laminate (2) as claimed (see figs. 1-7 and 9)
Similar to Kondo et al., Gorny discloses a frame comprising two first frames (‘01 and ‘02) and two second frames (’03 and ’04), and reinforcing frames (or cross rails), and the distance between the frame and the laminate (’05) is 0 (see figs. 2A, 12-15).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic module of Naito et al. by incorporating the two first frame and the two second frames as taught by Kondo et al. or Gorny into the frame of Naito et al. or using the frame comprising two first frames, two second frames and reinforcing frames as taught by Kondo et al. or Gorny, because Kondo et al. teaches using such frame would protect the laminate (or panel) with increased mechanical strength (see [0003] and [0008] of the translation oof Kondo et al.) and Gorny teaches such frame would provide structural rigidity and to allow the laminate to be mounted (see abstract, [0052-0054], [0073]). In such modification, the frame of modified Naito having the two first frames, two second frames and reinforcing frames as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 9-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Naito does not anticipate the configuration shown fig. 3. The examiner replies that fig. 3 is a non-elected species, and Naito anticipates the elected species ID.
However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
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 THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
