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 with traverse of invention I, species 1D drawn to a frame with limiting portions as shown in fig. 34, in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1 and 14 possess generic technical feature and the inventions can be examined together and no additional search or examination will be imposed by the non-elected species. This is not found persuasive because the inventions and species are mechanically and structurally different (see Applicant’s own drawings). Having a generic technical feature that does not mean the non-generic features are ignored in the search and examination. The examiner is burdened to search both relevant patent and patent applications as well as non-patent literature in the examination of the claims. Burden consists not only of specific searching of classes and subclasses, but also of searching multiple databases for foreign references and literature searches. Burden also resides in the examination of independent claim sets for clarity, enablement and double patenting issues.
Searching the instant inventions and species patentably distinct inventions would, in fact, impose a serious burden on the examiner. If applicants admit on the record that the inventions and species are obvious over one another, the inventions and species will be rejoined, since a single search would suffice for all.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 5 recites “a first limiting portion” and “a second limiting portion”, that is directed to the elected species 1D, e.g. a frame with limiting portions as shown in fig. 34.
Claim 7 recites “the second portion is fixedly connected to the back surface of the laminate” directed toward the non-elected species shown in fig. 3 as fig. 3 shows the second portion (322) being fixedly connected to the back surface of the laminate (310).
As such, claims 3, 7 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-13 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 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, or wherein both the second portion and the third portion extend along a third direction, and the first portion is fixedly connected to the back surface of the laminate, the third direction is parallel to a thickness direction of the photovoltaic module, and the first direction is perpendicular to the third direction” (emphasis added) in lines 5-10. It is unclear what is being claimed, since the claim requires both second portion and the third portion extend in two directions perpendicular to each other, the third direction and the first direction in alternative options each requires only one direction.
Claim 2, 4-6 and 8-13 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
For the purpose of this office action, the frame is construed as shown in the elected species of fig. 34, or both the second portion (322) and third portion (323) extend along a third direction (or vertical direction) parallel to a thickness direction of the photovoltaic module.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the frame comprises two first frames arranged opposite to each other along the first direction, and length directions of the first frames are parallel to a second direction, the second direction being parallel to a length direction of the photovoltaic module, the laminate comprises first edges arranged opposite to each other along the first direction and second edges arranged opposite to each other along the second direction, and in the first direction, a minimum distance between the first frame and the first edge ranges from 0 to 150 mm” in lines 1-8. It is unclear what is being claimed since the elected species does not require the first direction, e.g. both the second portion and the third portion extend along a first direction.
Claims 10-13 are rejected on the same ground as claim 9.
Claim 13 depends on claim 1 and recites “a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion” in line 3, while claim 1 also recites “a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion” in line 3. It is unclear if “a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion” recited in claim 13 are the same as or different from “a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion” recited in claim 1.
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, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito et al. (JP 2014011196, 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 third direction parallel to a thickness direction of the photovoltaic module (11, or vertical direction, see figs. 5-8 and 14-16).
Regarding claim 2, Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above, and 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, Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 2 above, and 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, Naito et al. discloses photovoltaic module as in claim 4 above, and 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, Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above, and 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, Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 6 above, and 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 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) 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above.
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 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, Naito et al. discloses a photovoltaic module as in claim 1 above, wherein 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights