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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/23/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
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) 1-6, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lu (EP2398065)
Regarding Claim 1, Lu et al. teaches a photovoltaic assembly (1000, Fig. 1, 0007) for a portable (Fig. 2 and 5, 0009) solar energy system, the photovoltaic assembly comprising:
a) a row of interconnected photovoltaic panels (60, Fig. 1, 0007), each photovoltaic panel comprising a perimeter frame (see exterior of 60, Fig. 1, 0014), said perimeter frame comprising a pair of longitudinal and a pair of transverse side edges, said photovoltaic panel defining an internal and an external major surface; b) a foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure ("Each of the plurality of support units 11 comprises a support beam 10, a pair of standing posts 20, a strengthening bar 30 and at least one horizontal beam 40. The pair of standing posts 20, the strengthening bar 30 and the at least one horizontal beam 40 are pivotable mounted on the support beam 10", par.9) comprising articulated members (a connecting member 50 is used to pivotably mount, par.9, 11), the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure being movable between a folded position and an operative position (par.9: pivotably mounted .... the support unit has a regular shape and is convenient for transportation, when packaged. When the plurality of support units 11 are assembled,... the strengthening bar 30 rotates relative to the support beam 10 to constitute a triangle with the support beam 10 and one of the pair of standing posts 20 collectively, comp. figs.1-2);
c) the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure further comprises at least two support elements (support beams 10, fig.1), each support element defining a support section (top portion 100) for receiving (see the top portion 100 comprising "a plurality of latching portions 105 and a plurality of stopper portions 106 to secure the photovoltaic panels 60 thereon.", par.10, fig.1. The latching portions of the support beams can be considered as the support sections for receiving the perimeter of the pv panels), and supporting (on the upper side) at least one longitudinal side edge of the perimeter frame of adjacent photovoltaic panels (adjacent panels 60 are mounted on one support beam 10, fig.1) and each support element being attached to said longitudinal side edges; d) said support element (10) comprising a first lateral face (side portions 101, comp.1 with figs.3-4 perpendicularly extending from two edges of the top portion 100) perpendicular to the internal major surface of the photovoltaic panel (60) and contiguous to the support section (100); and e) wherein one or more articulated members (50, par.11, 51, fig.3) of the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure (standing posts 20, the strengthening bar 30, one horizontal beam 40) are connected in an articulated manner (comp. figs.1-4) to the first lateral face (see 51, 40 in fig.3) of the corresponding support element (10) without traversing the one or more longitudinal side edges received in the support section.
Regarding Claim 2, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches in fig.2 the support element (10) comprises a second lateral face (101) opposite the first one (101) and is a U-shaped beam (a cross section of the receiving groove is in a U-shape, par.10).
Regarding Claim 3, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches wherein the support element is a U-shaped beam [a cross section of the receiving groove is in a U-shape, par.10]
Regarding Claim 4, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches wherein the support element is a L-shaped beam [a portion of a cross section of the receiving groove is in a L-shape, par.10]
Regarding Claim 5, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches in figs.1-4 showing that two or more articulated members (50, 51, Fig. 2 and 5,0009-0010) of the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure (The pair of standing posts 20, the strengthening bar 30 and the at least one horizontal beam 40) are connected in an articulated manner to the first lateral face (101) of the support element (10) [0009-0010].
Regarding Claim 6, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches in figs.1-4 showing that two or more articulated members (50, 51, Fig. 2 and 5,0009-0010) of the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure (The pair of standing posts 20, the strengthening bar 30 and the at least one horizontal beam 40) are connected in an articulated manner to the second lateral face (101) of the support element (10).
Regarding Claim 10, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches wherein the articulated members are connected in an articulated manner to their corresponding support element by an interconnection pin [see pin 52, Fig. 2, claim 1].
Regarding Claim 11, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches wherein the interconnection pins are mutually aligned [see pin 52, Fig. 2, claim 1].
Regarding Claim 12, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches wherein the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure comprise one or more reinforcing members [30, fig. 1-4, claim 1] interconnecting the articulated members [50, 51, Fig. 2 and 5,0009-0010].
Regarding Claim 13, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches wherein the one or more reinforcing members comprise one or more beams [30, fig. 1-4, claim 1].
Regarding Claim 14, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches wherein said one or more beams have at least one of the following cross-sections: squared, rectangular, circular, L-shaped or U-shaped [30, fig. 1-4, claim 1].
Regarding Claim 15, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. teaches wherein the one or more beams [30, Fig. 1-4, claim 1, 0019] interconnect corresponding articulated members by a distal end thereof [50, 51, Fig. 2 and 5,0009-0010], so that in the folded position of the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure [support beams 10, Fig.1, 0007] the one or more beams at least partially cover the transverse side edges of the perimeter frame [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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (EP2398065) in view of Kinard (US Pub No. 2011/0048504)
Regarding Claim 7, Lu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Lu et al. is silent on wherein each longitudinal side edge of the perimeter frame of the photovoltaic panels is received in a support element
Kinard et al. teaches a support element [201-205, Fig. 4E-4F, 0119] which comprises mounting screw holes [450, Fig. 4F, 0125], where the pv module 104 is attached to the support element by screw 405a [Fig. 4F, 0125].
Since Lu et al. teaches the use of a PV module attached on top of a support element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to attach the support element and pv panel of Lu et al. with the configuration shown by Kinard et al as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for pv modules in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Lu et al. teaches wherein the longitudinal side edges of the perimeter frame of the photovoltaic panels comprise orifices [Kinard: 450, Fig. 4F, 0125] in a face parallel to the internal major surface of the photovoltaic panel; and
wherein the support elements are attached to the corresponding longitudinal side edges by fasteners passing through said orifices of the perimeter frame [see rejection of claim 7].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Lu et al. teaches wherein the fasteners comprise at least one of the following: rivets, bolts, or screws [see rejection of claim 7].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the arguments about “wherein the stiffening and/or supporting structure further comprises at least two support elements, each support element defining a support section for receiving and supporting at least one longitudinal side edge of the perimeter frame of adjacent photovoltaic panels”
Lu et al. teaches the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure further comprises at least two support elements (support beams 10, fig.1), each support element defining a support section (top portion 100) for receiving (see the top portion 100 comprising "a plurality of latching portions 105 and a plurality of stopper portions 106 to secure the photovoltaic panels 60 thereon.", par.10, fig.1. The latching portions of the support beams can be considered as the support sections for receiving the perimeter of the pv panels), and supporting (on the upper side) at least one longitudinal side edge of the perimeter frame of adjacent photovoltaic panels (adjacent panels 60 are mounted on one support beam 10, fig.1.
Lu et al. specifically teaches the top portion 100 comprising "a plurality of latching portions 105 and a plurality of stopper portions 106 to secure the photovoltaic panels 60 thereon, meeting the limitation of “receiving” [0008].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728