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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 40 recites a phrase ending in “comprises” which appears to contain a typographical error.
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 49 depends from claim 37 which is cancelled. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will consider claim 49 to depend from claim 35.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The phrase “bending the second portion of the adjustable integrated fastener about the first portion of the adjustable integrated fastener” (emphasis added) in claim 35 could be interpreted as requiring the second portion to wrap around the first portion. However, Figs 54, 55 of the present application (from which the limitation derives support) show the second portion bending relative to the first portion, but not wrapping around. Examiner will interpret this limitation accordingly.
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 35, 39-43, and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truthseeker (US 2020/0127599 having an effective filing date of 17 Dec 2018 from Provisional Application 62/780,662) in view of Durin (US 6,489,566).
As to claim 35, Truthseeker teaches a method for attaching photovoltaic solar modules (modules 1 are photovoltaic, see [0030] and Fig 15) to a surface ([0036]: “Referring initially to FIG. 13, a PV array 100 of one embodiment includes modules 1 mounted on supports 52 on a surface of a structure.”) comprising the steps of: providing a photovoltaic solar module framework (each module 1 is shown in Fig 15 as having a framework on which wire receivers 20 are located); providing an [ ] integrated fastener of said photovoltaic solar module framework (Truthseeker teaches a wire receiver 20 is integral with module 1); placing a solar powder electrical cable (Truthseeker [0002]: “This disclosure generally relates to wire receivers and, more specifically, to wire receivers for securing power and communication wires of a solar array.”) near said [ ] integrated fastener (as shown in Fig 2, solar power electrical wire 8 is placed near the cleat 48); and securing said solar power electrical cable to at least part of said photovoltaic solar module framework with said [ ] integrated fastener ([0035]: “Embodiments of the described system include a built-in wire management device that secures photovoltaic wires.”).
Truthseeker does not teach the integrated fastener is adjustable, nor the particular shape of the fastener having first and second portions as claimed, and does not teach after placing the solar power electrical cable near said adjustable integrated fastener, adjusting said adjustable integrated fastener around said solar power electrical cable by at least bending the second portion of the adjustable integrated fastener about the first portion of the adjustable integrated fastener.
Rather, Truthseeker teaches the cleat 48 stays static while the cable 8 is adjusted around the cleat. However, in the mechanical arts, the problem of connecting wires to support structures has been solved in various ways. See Durin which teaches a device for fixing a wire on a carrier element (Title)1. Durin teaches connecting wire 6 to baseplate 21. Specifically, Durin teaches a lug 24 as shown in Fig 2 which is cut and bent from the material of the baseplate as described at Col 3 lines 38-40. The lug 24 of Durin therefore has a similar configuration as the cleat 48 of Truthseeker. Durin teaches adjusting the lug 24 around the cable at Col 4 lines 10-12: “as the tongue 22 has been bent around the longitudinal wire 6 and toward the surface of the section 11 using a screwdriver or preferably the tool 100 shown in FIG. 6.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the adjustability and the method of adjusting the integrated fastener of Truthseeker in the manner of Durin. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefits of Durin such as a strong affixing of the wire to the frame. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, the known methods are taken from Durin’s method of forming the lug, and the results are predictable since the devices being manipulated are simple metal tabs.
Accordingly, the combination of Truthseeker and Durin teach the integrated fastener is adjustable (Durin teaches adjusting the lug 24 around the cable at Col 4 lines 10-12: “as the tongue 22 has been bent around the longitudinal wire 6 and toward the surface of the section 11 using a screwdriver or preferably the tool 100 shown in FIG. 6.”); the adjustable integrated fastener (Durin’s lug 24) including a first portion (heelpiece 23) and a second portion (tongue 22), the first portion integral with and extending from said photovoltaic solar module framework (the heelpiece 23 of Durin extends from the baseplate 21 of the carrier element), the second portion extending from the first portion (as shown in Durin Fig 3, the tongue 23 extends from the heelpiece 23); and adjusting said integrated fastener around said solar power electrical cable by at least bending the second portion of the adjustable integrated fastener about the first portion of the adjustable integrated fastener (as shown in Durin Fig 5, the tongue 22 is bent about the heelpiece 23 to capture the wire 6).
As to claim 39, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 35 wherein adjusting said adjustable integrated fastener around said solar power electrical cable comprises bending the second portion of said adjustable integrated fastener around at least part of said solar power electrical cable (as shown in Fig. 5 of Durin, the tongue 22 of lug 24 is bent around the wire 6).
As to claim 40, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 35 wherein said step of adjusting said adjustable integrated fastener around said solar power electrical cable further comprises adjusting said adjustable integrated fastener up, and wherein bending the second portion of the adjustable integrated fastener about the first portion of the adjustable integrated fastener comprises is after adjusting the adjustable integrated fastener up (Examiner acknowledges the embodiment shown in Durin’s Figures illustrates a bending of the tongue 22 downward (toward the baseplate 21). However, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have, as a matter of common sense, bent the tongue 22 into any configuration required (including “up”) in order to be able to capture a wire of any reasonable size. That is, a wire having a diameter larger than the length of heelpiece 23 would require the tongue to be bent upwards before being captured.).
As to claim 41, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 35 wherein said step of providing said adjustable integrated fastener of said photovoltaic solar module framework comprises a step of providing said adjustable integrated fastener which is part of said photovoltaic solar module framework (the wire receiver 20 (obviated to be modified into lug 24 of Durin) is shown on the module framework 1 in Truthseeker Fig 15.).
As to claim 42, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 37 wherein said step of providing said adjustable integrated finger of said photovoltaic solar module framework comprises a step of providing a raised adjustable integrated finger of said photovoltaic solar module framework (Durin’s lug 24 is a raised adjustable integrated finger).
As to claim 46, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 35 wherein said step of providing said adjustable integrated fastener (lug 24 of Durin) comprises a step of forming said adjustable integrated fastener from said photovoltaic solar module framework (lug 24 is an obviated replacement of wire receiver 20 with cleat 48) and at least initially, before bending the second portion, positioning said adjustable integrated fastener above and parallel to said photovoltaic solar module framework (as shown in Durin Fig 2, the tongue 22 of lug 24 is initially positioned parallel to baseplate 21).
As to claim 47, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 46 wherein said step of bending the second portion of said adjustable integrated fastener (tongue 22) around said solar power electrical cable (Durin’s wire 6 and Truthseeker’s electrical wire 8) comprises the step of moving at least the second portion from said parallel position to a position around said solar power electrical cable (as shown in Durin Fig 5, the lug 24 is adjusted to a position non-parallel with the baseplate 21 and around the wire 6.).
As to claim 48, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 35 and further comprising a step of positioning said solar power electrical cable between a side wall and a bottom flange of said photovoltaic solar module framework (Truthseeker [0057] teaches, “The wire receivers 20 may be located on the laminate, frame, or other component of the modules 1. In the example, the wire receivers 20 are located along an edge of the modules 1. The wire receivers 20 may also be located on an upper or lower surface of the module 1 or elsewhere on the module.” Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the cable of Truthseeker may be held by the wire receiver at any reasonable position on the module 1, including between a side wall and a bottom flange.), and wherein bending the second portion around said solar power electrical cable comprises bending at least the second portion toward the side wall and around at least part of said solar power electrical cable (Durin teaches bending a metal lug 24 to capture a wire. Given Truthseeker’s teachings to positioning the wire at any reasonable position on the frame, choosing to capture the solar power electrical wire at said position is not a patentable jump.).
As to claim 49, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 48 wherein said step of positioning said solar power electrical cable between a side wall and a bottom flange of said photovoltaic solar module framework comprises a step of positioning said solar panel electrical cable in a corner of said side wall and said bottom flange of said photovoltaic solar module framework (It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have chosen to capture the wire in the corner of said sidewall and said bottom flange. As described in the rejection of claim 48 above, Truthseeker suggests any reasonable placement of the wire on the photovoltaic frame, which includes a corner. Moreover, Durin’s teachings go to capturing a wire by bending a metal lug 24. See MPEP § 2143 A.).
Claims 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truthseeker in view of Durin as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Beuke (US 2014/0060625).
As to claim 44, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 35 but does not teach said photovoltaic solar module framework is made of steel.
Rather, Truthseeker teaches at [0042] that the support member is made of metal, but does not specify steel. Durin teaches the baseplate is made of “sheetmetal” but also does not indicate steel. However, steel was well known and often used in the manufacture of photovoltaic solar module frameworks at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Beuke which teaches a PV module 34 having a frame 36. The frame is made of steel: “The frames of the invention can be made from any material that can be roll formed and hold its shape, for example stainless steel coil stock” ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have made the solar module framework of Truthseeker from steel. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve the benefits of steel as discussed by Beuke such as the ability to be roll formed and hold its shape. Moreover, steel is able to be stamped, which is one of the forming methods of the wire receivers 20 of Truthseeker and cut and bent, which is one of the forming methods of the lugs 24 of Durin.
As to claim 45, Truthseeker in view of Durin teaches the method according to claim 35 but does not teach said step of providing said photovoltaic solar module framework comprises a step of providing a folded photovoltaic solar module framework.
Rather, Truthseeker is silent as to the method of manufacture of the solar modular framework. However, a folding process was well known and often used in the manufacture of photovoltaic solar module frameworks at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Beuke which teaches a PV module 34 having a frame 36 which is formed by a bending operation shown at least at Figs 9a-9b and discussed at [0039].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have made the solar module framework of Truthseeker by folding in the method taught by Beuke. See MPEP § 2143 D which discusses the prima facie obviousness of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, the known technique of bending a PV module framework is applied to the known device of Truthseeker in order to yield the predictable result of a folded frame PV module framework which retains all of the function of the Truthseeker frame.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 6 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 35, 37, 39-42, and 46-49 under Truthseeker in view of Nakanishi and claims 44-45 under Truthseeker in view of Nakanishi and Beuke have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Truthseeker in view of Durin, or Truthseeker in view of Durin and Beuke respectively.
Applicant had previously made arguments against Durin that were unaddressed, and will be addressed here.
Applicant's arguments against Durin filed on 22 September 2025 (Pages 4-6) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner will also refer to Applicant’s arguments in the Office Action Appendix of the Interview Summary mailed 9 July 2025.
On pages 4-5 of the September 2025 remarks, Applicant argues an aluminum cleat of finger of the kind described by Truthseeker would crack or break off by virtue of being made of aluminum. As indicated in the Non-Final rejection mailed 1 October 2025, this argument is not persuasive. There is no teaching in Truthseeker that the module 1 is made of extruded aluminum. There is no requirement in claim 25 of any particular material. The limitation regarding the material of the inventive framework is addressed in the rejection of claim 44.
On page 5 of the September 2025 remarks, Applicant argues, “Durin fixes a mesh cable duct (a wire tray) to a carrier element, not the individual wires. Durin is not tailored for PV systems.” Applicant further explains that Durin’s wire 6 is part of a “mesh cable duct” and is not an electrical wire. (The cable duct may carry electrical wires, but those wires are not captured by lug 24).
Examiner mostly agrees with Applicant’s explanation of the teachings of Durin. However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Durin’s lug being useful only for capturing a mesh cable duct. Rather, Durin’s invention is directed to a device for fixing a wire on a carrier element (Title). The mesh being part of a cable carrier is merely an example embodiment of Durin. See Durin Col 2 lines 9-14: “An object of the present invention is to alleviate this drawback. It relates to a device for fixing a wire to a support member in which there is at least one opening, without lugs, so that a single type of support member can be used to fix at least one wire, such as longitudinal wires of a mesh structure, or a globally solid structure.” Here, Durin teaches that the device can fix “at least one wire” and then gives an example: “such as longitudinal wires of a mesh structure.” Durin’s teachings would be understood by an artisan as applicable to any wire, including single wires, not just wires which are part of mesh structures. Again, as described in the title, Durin is directed to a “Device For Fixing A Wire On A Carrier Element” which should be broadly understood to be applicable to any wire, not just wires attached to mesh structures.
Applicant’s argument that Durin’s wire 6 is not intended to conduct current is not persuasive because Truthseeker’s power cable 8 meets this limitation.
Applicant’s argument that Durin is not directed to a “PV environment” is not persuasive because Durin is analogous to the present invention by virtue of addressing the problem the inventor was also attempting to solve. Namely, capturing and fixing wires to carrier elements. See MPEP § 2141.01(a) for a discussion of analogous art.
On Page 5 of the September remarks, Applicant argues that Truthseeker and Durin address fundamentally different problems and are therefore not analogous. Examiner disagrees. As described above, Truthseeker and Durin are both analogous to the present invention because both are concerned with capturing and fixing wires on carrier elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 17 April 2026
1 Durin provides an example of the wire 6 being part of a mesh cable duct tray, but Durin is fundamentally directed to connecting a wire component to a carrier element (as described in the Title). Both Durin and Truthseeker are solving the same problem faced by Applicant, which is the problem of connecting a wire to a support member. In the case of Truthseeker, the wire is an electrical cable of a photovoltaic panel. In the case of Durin, the wire is broadly recited, and one example is of a wire part of a mesh tray.
Prosecution Insights