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 without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 19 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 March 2026.
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.
Claim 12 and 24-35 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.
In regards to claim 12, it is unclear how the at least one locking formation can be formed on the at least one curved sidewall portion if the sidewall portion is on the second coupling portion. Appropriate explanation or correction is required.
In regards to claim 24, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “a roof”, and the claim also recites “in particular to a flat roof” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 25-35 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
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 1, 4-12 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bragagna et al. (US Pat. No. 9,194,612 B2) in view of Fournier (FR 2975475 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Bragagna teaches a support element (20) for a support system for supporting a solar module, wherein the support element is provided with at least one first coupling portion (i.e.; the lower coupling portion, 21, 22) and at least one second coupling portion (24), wherein the at least one first coupling portion is provided with at least one hooking receptacle (defined by 42, 43, Fig. 3) and at least one locking formation (defined by 31, 32, 33, Fig. 3), wherein the at least one locking formation is formed on an outer face and/or an inner face of the support element, wherein the at least one first coupling portion is provided with one longitudinal channel (i.e.; potion coupled to 18) for receiving at least one connecting member (18), wherein the at least one longitudinal channel is arranged between the at least one locking formation and the at least one hooking receptacle.
Bragagna does not teach the first coupling portion is formed so that it can be connected to a corresponding support element as well as to a base rail.
Fournier teaches a support element with a first coupling portion (36, Fig. 5A) formed so that it can be connected to a corresponding support element (3, Fig. 6) as well as to a base rail (10, Fig. 3A).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Bragagna’s support element such that the first coupling portion is formed so that it can be connected to a corresponding support element as well as to a base rail. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing adjustability of the inclination of the solar panel as taught by Bragagna (see Page 8, 2nd paragraph of English translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
188
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, modified Bragagna teaches the at least one longitudinal channel is provided with at least one channel opening (i.e.; the bottom opening O; see annotation above), which extends between the hooking receptacle and the at least one locking formation.
In regards to claim 5, in the alternative, modified Bragagna teaches the at least one locking formation (Bragagna: 31, 32, 33) is formed on the outer face of a wall (Bragagna: 21) of the at least one longitudinal channel (i.e.; the entire channel width between 21 and 22 of Bragagna).
In regards to claim 6, modified Bragagna teaches the at least one locking formation (Bragagna: 31, 32, 33) is provided with at least one locking projection (Bragagna: 32 or 33) which extend outwards or inwards.
In regards to claim 7, modified Bragagna teaches the at least one locking formation (Bragagna: 31, 32, 33), the at least one hooking receptacle (Bragagna: 42, 43) and the at least one longitudinal channel are formed together on an end portion of the support element (i.e.; the bottom end).
In regards to claim 8, modified Bragagna teaches the second coupling portion (Bragagna: 24) is provided with at least one locking formation (i.e.; the formations on the corners of 24), which is formed on an outer face or on an inner face of the at least one support element.
PNG
media_image2.png
252
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, modified Bragagna teaches the at least one second coupling portion (Bragagna: 24) is provided with at least one inwardly directed hook (H; see annotation above).
PNG
media_image3.png
242
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 10, modified Bragagna teaches the at least one locking formation is provided with at least one inwardly directed locking projection (P; see annotation above).
In regards to claim 11, modified Bragagna teaches the second coupling portion (Bragagna: 24) is provided with at least one curved sidewall portion (see C-shape corner of 24).
In regards to claim 12, as best understood with respect to the 112b rejection above, Bragagna teaches the at least one locking formation (e.g.; the corner portion of 24 of Bragagna) is formed on the at least one curved sidewall portion.
In regards to claim 24, modified Bragagna teaches a support system for attaching a solar module (3, Fig. 1) to a roof, in particular to a flat roof, wherein the support system is provided with at least one support element (20) according to claim 1 and at least one base rail (83), which can be connected to the at least one support element.
In regards to claim 25, modified Bragagna teaches the support system is provided with several support elements (i.e.; as modified by Fournier’s stacked support elements 3) wherein at least two support elements are arranged on the at least one base rail cooperating to support a module frame of a solar module.
In regards to claim 26, modified Bragagna teaches the support system is provided with at least one ballast rail (Bragagna: 1) for supporting ballast weight, wherein the at least one ballast rail is coupled to the at least one base rail (Bragagna: 83).
In regards to claim 27, modified Bragagna’s at least one base rail (Bragagna: 83) is capable of supporting ballast weight.
Claims 28-32, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bragagna et al. (US Pat. No. 9,194,612 B2) and Fournier (FR 2975475 A1), and in further review of Jasmin et al. (US Pat. No. 11,296,648 B1).
In regards to claim 28, Bragagna, modified by Fournier, does not teach the support system is provided with at least one connecting profile, and wherein the connecting profile is provided with at least one holding member, wherein the at least one holding member has at least one claw which is formed to hold the connecting profile on at least one of the rails.
Jasmin teaches a support system provided with at least one connecting profile (21, Fig. 35), and wherein the connecting profile is provided with at least one holding member (67), wherein the at least one holding member has at least one claw (67f) which is formed to hold the connecting profile on at least one of the rails (12, 12’, Fig. 41).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Bragagna’s system to be provided with at least one connecting profile, and wherein the connecting profile is provided with at least one holding member, wherein the at least one holding member has at least one claw which is formed to hold the connecting profile on at least one of the rails. The motivation would be for the purpose of joining adjacent rails together as taught by Jasmin (Col 2, Lines 24-25), thus expanding the length of the rails.
In regards to claim 29, in modifying Bragagna, Jasmin teaches the at least one connecting profile (Jasmin: 21) is formed to be coupled with at least one of the rails (Jasmin: 12, 12’) via a translatory movement (i.e.; along the longitudinal axis of 12).
In regards to claim 30, in modifying Bragagna, Jasmin teaches the at least one claw (Jasmin: 67f) is formed so that it prevents a relative movement between the connecting profile and one of the rails in at least one direction (e.g.; downward direction in Fig. 42 of Jasmin).
In regards to claim 31, in modifying Bragagna, Jasmin teaches the at least one claw (Jasmin: 67f) extends to the connecting profile at an angle (e.g.; a right angle in Fig. 42).
In regards to claim 32, in modifying Bragagna, Jasmin teaches the at least one holding member (Jasmin: 67) is attached to the lower side of the at least one connecting profile (Jasmin: 21).
In regards to claim 34, in modifying Bragagna, Jasmin teaches the at least one holding member (Jasmin: 67) is provided with at least one stop element (e.g.; 68 of Jasmin).
In regards to claim 35, in modifying Bragagna, Jasmin teaches the connecting profile (Jasmin: 21) and the at least one rail (Jasmin: 12, 12’) are part of a connecting system, and wherein the connecting profile and the at least one rail are formed correspondingly to be connectable via a translatory movement (i.e.; along the longitudinal axis of 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest further modifying Bragagna to include the combination of structural and functional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to the Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights