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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 remain pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripoll US 2016/0258554 (hereinafter Ripoll) in view of Aotani US 2015/0276093 (hereinafter Aotani).
Re. Cl. 1, Ripoll discloses: A photovoltaic module cable clip (502, Fig. 5), comprising: a first portion (516 and 522, Fig. 5) that is configured to fasten to a flange of a frame of a photovoltaic module (see Fig. 8); and a third portion (503, Fig. 5) that extends vertically from the first portion (see Fig. 5) that is configured to accommodate a cable (see Fig. 8, 301) underneath the flange (see Fig. 8).
Re. Cl. 15, Ripoll discloses: A method of forming photovoltaic module cable clip (see Fig. 5), comprising: forming a first portion (516 and 522, Fig. 5) that is configured to fasten to a flange of a frame of a photovoltaic module (see Fig. 8); and forming a third portion (503, Fig. 5) that extends vertically from the first portion and the second portion (see Fig. 5) that is configured to accommodate a cable (see Fig. 8, 301) underneath the flange (see Fig. 8).
Re. Cls. 2 and 16, Ripoll discloses: the first portion is configured to contact three sides of the flange of the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 8, three sides of 208).
Re. Cls. 5 and 19, Ripoll discloses: the third portion is configured to partially surround the cable (see Fig. 8).
Re. Cls. 6 and 20, Ripoll discloses: the third portion includes a plurality of components (see 504, 506 and 508s, Fig. 6a) that are configured to partially surround the cable (see Fig. 8).
Re. Cl. 7, Ripoll discloses: the third portion is hook shaped (see Fig. 8).
Re. Cls. 1, 3, 15 and 16-17 Ripoll does not disclose a second portion that is configured to fasten to an outside wall of the frame of the photovoltaic module, the third portion extends vertically upward from both the first and second portion or the second portion is further configured to fasten to a bottom surface of the frame between the outside wall and first portion (Cls. 1 and 15), the second portion is configured to extend vertically up the outside wall of the frame of the photovoltaic module (Cls. 3 and 17). Aotani discloses a cable clip (Fig. 1) which includes a first portion (111, 112 and 113, Fig. 1)) configured to fasten to the a flange of a frame (see Fig. 2, 510), a second portion (120, Fig. 1) that is configured to fasten to an outside wall of the frame of the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 2-3, 520), the third portion (114, 115, 116, Fig. 1-3) extends vertically from both the first and second portion (see Fig. 1-3); the second portion is configured to extend vertically up the outside wall of the frame of the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 3, vertically up 520); the second portion is further configured to fasten to a bottom surface of the frame between the outside wall and the first portion (see Fig. 3, at 520).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ripoll device to have the second portion of Aotani (i.e. extending portion 522 so that it wraps around 202 as shown in Fig. 8) with reasonable expectation of success since Aotani states that such a modification forms a locking connection with the support (Paragraph 0030, Lines 6-10). Such a modification would provide a more secure connection with the support module that is resistant to unintended movement.
Claims 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ripoll in view of Aotani in view of Naugler US 2022/0060006 (hereinafter Naugler).
Re. Cl. 8, Ripoll discloses: A photovoltaic module (see Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of solar cells (104, Fig. 1); a frame that is coupled to the solar cells (106, Fig. 1); one or more cables (see 301, Fig. 3-4 and 8) coupled to the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 3-4); and a cable clip (502, Fig. 5) fastening the one or more cables to the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 8) wherein the cable clip comprises: a first portion (516 and 522, Fig. 5) that is configured to fasten to a flange of the frame (see Fig. 8, flange 208); and a third portion (503, Fig. 5) that extends vertically from the first portion (see Fig. 5) that is configured to accommodate the one or more cables (see Fig. 8, 301) underneath the flange (see Fig. 8).
Re. Cl. 9, Ripoll discloses: the first portion is configured to contact three sides of the flange of the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 8, three sides of 208).
Re. Cl. 12, Ripoll discloses: the third portion is configured to partially surround the cable (see Fig. 8).
Re. Cl. 13, Ripoll discloses: the third portion includes a plurality of components (see 504, 506 and 508s, Fig. 6a) that are configured to partially surround the cable (see Fig. 8).
Re. Cl. 14, Ripoll discloses: the third portion is hook shaped (see Fig. 8).
Re. Cls. 8 and 10, Ripoll does not disclose a plurality of cable clips; a second portion that is configured to fasten to an outside wall of the frame of the photovoltaic module, the third portion extends vertically upward from both the first and second portion or the second portion is further configured to fasten to a bottom surface of the frame between the outside wall and the first portion (Cl. 8), the second portion is configured to extend vertically up the outside wall of the frame of the photovoltaic module (Cl. 10). Aotani discloses a cable clip (Fig. 1) which includes a first portion (111, 112 and 113, Fig. 1)) configured to fasten to the a flange of a frame (see Fig. 2, 510), a second portion (120, Fig. 1) that is configured to fasten to an outside wall of the frame of the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 2-3, 520), the third portion (114, 115, 116, Fig. 1-3) extends vertically from both the first and second portion (see Fig. 1-3); the second portion is configured to extend vertically up the outside wall of the frame of the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 3, vertically up 520); the second portion is further configured to fasten to a bottom surface of the frame between the outside wall and the first portion (see Fig. 3, at 520).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ripoll device to have the second portion of Aotani (i.e. extending portion 522 so that it wraps around 202 as shown in Fig. 8) with reasonable expectation of success since Aotani states that such a modification forms a locking connection with the support (Paragraph 0030, Lines 6-10). Such a modification would provide a more secure connection with the support module that is resistant to unintended movement.
Re. Cl. 8, the combination of Ripoll in view of Aotani does not explicitly disclose the use of a plurality of cable clips but merely discusses the use of one cable clip. Naugler discloses an alternate cable clip (10, Fig. 1) which secures to a photovoltaic module (12) which can be referred to in a singular or plural nature (Paragraph 0033, Lines 5-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of the combined Ripoll in view of Aotani device as disclosed by Naugler with reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would enable the user to route a larger number of cables/wires, thus increasing the organization of the assembly. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that Aotani does not disclose the limitation “configured to fasten to an extend along a bottom surface of the frame between the outside wall and the first portion,” the Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, it is the Examiner’s position that the proposed modification would result in the extension of portion 522 in Ripoli so that it wraps around 202 as shown in Fig. 8 since Aotani discloses a second portion (120, Fig. 1) that is configured to fasten to an outside wall of the frame of the photovoltaic module (see Fig. 2-3, 520) and is further configured to fasten to a bottom surface of the frame between the outside wall and the first portion (see Fig. 3, at 520). Applicant alleges that the proposed modification would destroy a basic principle of the design or Ripoli but does not disclose why such a modification would destroy a basic principle of design or what that basic principle of design even is. It is the Examiner’s position that the modification would not destroy a basic principle of design but would merely improve the Ripoli device by providing the locking or more secure connection as discussed above. Applicant further alleges that the proposed modification would destroy a principle of primary design by changing an attachment system that is based solely on a clamping of an inside portion of a frame to include reliance on support from contact with an outside wall. It is the Applicant’s position that such a modification would involve wholesale reimagining and rearranging of the device. It is the Examiner’s position that the proposed modification would not change a principle of primary design but merely enhance the principle of design since it would form a more secure connection. Ripoli does not specify that modifications cannot be made to the device which would change the attachment system which appears to be Applicant’s position. In fact, Ripoli explicitly states that “Examples of features provided in the disclosure are intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive unless stated otherwise. The above description is intended to cover such alternatives, modifications, and equivalents as would be apparent to a person skilled in the art having the benefit of this disclosure” in Paragraph 0098. It is the Examiner’s position that the proposed modification would fall within the modifications discussed and provide an enhanced feature to Ripoli. Further, it is the Examiner’s position that the modification would not involve a wholesale reimagining and rearranging of the device since it would merely require extending portion 522 in Ripoli so that it wraps around 202 as shown in Fig. 8. Such a modification would be well within the ability of one having ordinary skill since no parts of Ripoli would need be to be rearranged but would merely add parts to the attachment system to improve the connection to the frame. Therefore, Applicant’s argument have been considered but are not persuasive and the Examiner maintains the rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baynard US 2024/0063618, Cemashko US 3036801, Grushkowitz US 2012/0192925, and Kovalov US 8974245 disclose other known wire clips for photovoltaic modules presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632