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
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for assembling a frame of a photovoltaic module, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 29th, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 drawn to a photovoltaic facility in the reply filed on July 29th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schade (DE-10125773-A1). Schade is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 1, Schade discloses a photovoltaic facility (Fig. 3) comprising:
a colored metal tile (Fig. 2, #10 – Page 5, Last Paragraph – can be colored see claim 14);
can be steel (Page 2, 3rd Paragraph);
a clamp connected to the colored metal tile and comprising a clamping body (Fig. 2b, #62-#63 – Page 8, 1st-2nd Paragraph);
a thermo module located on one side of the clamping body (Fig. 2b, #55 - Page 7, 9th Paragraph) and connected to the clamping body through a connecting member (Fig. 2b, #59-#61 – Page 8, 1st Paragraph);
wherein the thermo module comprises a laminate (Fig. 2b, #53 & #55 associated thermo module layers) and a frame (Fig. 2b, #52) connected to a back side of the laminate (Fig. 2b, #52 is connected to the back side of the thermo module);
the frame is provided with an opening (Fig. 2b, #58 – Page 8, 1st Paragraph); and the connecting member extends into the opening and abuts against a sidewall of the opening (Fig. 2b, #59 – Page 8, 1st Paragraph).
Schade does not explicitly teach that the thermo module is a photovoltaic module in this embodiment but does disclose that the component set according to the invention is therefore suitable and doesn’t have problems for photovoltaic modules as well as for thermal modules, in particular respective adaptations of the individual components are not required (Page 4, 7th Paragraph). Accordingly, the thermo module and photovoltaic module and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed could have substituted the thermo module for the known photovoltaic module and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
In view of Claim 9, Schade is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Schade discloses that the clamp comprises two symmetrically arranged clamping bodies (Fig. 2b, #24b) along a width direction of the photovoltaic module (See Figs. 1 & 2b), a clamping spaced is provided between the two clamping body and part of the color steel tile is capable of extending into the clamping space (Fig. 2b, #10 is between the elements #24 on both sides of the clamping body).
In view of Claim 10, Schade is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Schade discloses a sidewall of the clamping space extends along a height direction of the photovoltaic module (Fig. 2b, #24 extends diagonally upwards, which is still a height direction of the PV module).
In view of Claim 11, Schade is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Schade discloses that sidewalls of the clamping space have an arch shaped structure that protrudes outwards along a width direction of the PV module (Fig. 2b, #24).
In view of Claim 12, Schade is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Schade discloses that the frame comprises two first frames arranged opposite to each other along a width direction of the PV module (Fig. 2b, #52 is present on “opposite” sides of the laminate).
In view of Claim 13, Schade is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Schade discloses the frame further comprises at least one reinforcing frame, and along the length direction the reinforcing frame is arranged between the two second frames (Fig. 1, portions of the frame are connected to the “sidewalls”/two first frames arranged opposite to each other along the width direction of the PV module).
Claims 2-3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schade (DE-10125773-A1) in view of Lin (CN-112502361-A). Schade and Lin are mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 2, Schade is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Schade does not disclose the sidewall of the opening is provided with an extension portion, the connecting member comprises an engaging groove, and the extension portion extends into the engaging groove and is engaged with the engaging groove.
Lin discloses a sidewall of an opening is provided with an extension portion, the connecting member comprises an engaging groove, and the extension portion extends into the engaging groove and is engaged with the engaging groove (See Annotated Lin Fig. 6, below). Lin discloses that this configuration can be advantageous in the sense the it has functions of heat insulation, fire resistance, and water resistance during roof installation (Page 4, Lines 17-22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the sidewall of the opening provided with an extension portion, the connecting member comprises an engaging groove, and the extension portion extended into the engaging groove and is engaged with the engaging groove as disclosed by Lin et al. in Schade’s photovoltaic facility for the advantage of having a configuration that advantageously provides heat insulating, fire resistance, and water resistance.
Annotated Lin Fig. 6
PNG
media_image1.png
752
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 3, Schade and Lin are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Lin discloses that the engaging groove comprises a first engaging portion, the first engaging portion is located in the frame and the first engaging portion is capable of abutting against a side wall of the frame along a width direction of the photovoltaic module and along a height direction of the photovoltaic module the first engaging portion comprises a first end abutting against a top wall of the frame and a second end abutting against the extension portion (See Annotated Lin Fig. 6, below).
Annotated Lin Fig. 6
PNG
media_image2.png
580
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 6, Schade is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Schade does not disclose the connecting member comprises a limiting groove extending towards the color steel tile along a height direction of the photovoltaic module and part of the frame is received in the limiting groove.
Lin discloses a connecting member that comprises a limiting groove extending towards the color steel tile along a heigh direction of the photovoltaic module and part of the frame is received in the limiting groove (See Annotated Lin Fig. 6, below). Lin discloses that this configuration can be advantageous in the sense the it has functions of heat insulation, fire resistance, and water resistance during roof installation (Page 4, Lines 17-22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the connecting member comprises a limiting groove extending towards the color steel tile along a height direction of the photovoltaic module and part of the frame is received in the limiting groove as disclosed by Lin in Schade’s photovoltaic facility for the advantage of having a configuration that advantageously provides heat insulating, fire resistance, and water resistance.
Annotated Lin Fig. 6
PNG
media_image3.png
574
783
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights