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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 14th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 14th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejection over claims 2, 10, 13 and 16 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection over Mascolo et al. in view of Morgan et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment although the rejections over Mascolo et al. in view of Morgan et al. in view of Wildes ‘867 are maintained.
New rejections follow.
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 13 is 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.
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant recites, “the vane radius of curvature”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
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 1-4, 7, 10 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascolo et al. (US 2022/0123688 A1) in view of Wildes et al. (US 2013/0276867 A1) in view of Morgan et al. (US 2010/0126554 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Mascolo et al. discloses a system (Fig. 13) comprising:
at least two photovoltaic modules, each comprising a respective module area being substantially perpendicular to the thickness of the corresponding photovoltaic module, each of the at least two module areas comprising two first sides being substantially perpendicular to the thickness of the corresponding photovoltaic module and two second side being substantially perpendicular to the thickness of the corresponding photovoltaic module and being substantially parallel to each other and substantially perpendicular to the two first sides (See Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13, below);
Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13
PNG
media_image1.png
635
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the at least two modules are arranged in a substantially parallel manner with respect to each other and are shifted with respect to each other in an extension direction of the system (See Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13, above); and
a front surface substantially parallel to the respective module area and a back surface opposite to the front surface (See Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13, below);
Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13
PNG
media_image2.png
451
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mascolo et al. does not disclose each of the multiple vanes is configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane radius of curvature and a vane arc length.
Wildes et al. teaches multiple vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane radius of curvature and a vane arc length (it does have a length) that advantageously reduces wind load (Fig. 10, #94A-B & Paragraph 0065). Wildes et al. teaches that these vanes direct airflow around at least one of the two first sides (Paragraph 0065 – deflect wind up and over the array of PV modules rather than under). In regards to them being “carried by at least one bridge element”, any of the underlying elements that support 94A/94B shown in Fig. 10 can be considered “bridge elements”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the configuration where multiples vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprise a radius of curvature as disclosed by Wildes et al. in modified Mascolo et al. system for the advantages of having a configuration that reduces wind load.
Mascolo et al. does not disclose that the at least two modules are arranged staggered with respect to an extension plane in the extension direction of the system and the extension direction being substantially parallel to the first sides.
Morgan et al. discloses at least two modules are staggered with respect to an extension plane in an extension direction of a system and the extension direction being substantially parallel to parallel first sides of modules for the advantage of having an improved heat shedding configuration (Figure 25a, the first sides are the sides of the PV modules going into the traditional “z-direction” & Paragraph 0085). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the at least two modules of Mascolo et al. be arranged so that they are staggered with respect to an extension plane in the extension direction of the system for the advantage of having the PV modules in a improved heat shedding configuration.
In view of Claim 2, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Wildes et al. discloses that the multiple vanes are configured to guide wind to the front or back surface (Fig. 10, if the wind blows from left to right or right to left over the array in the “y-direction”, this limitation is satisfied).
In view of Claim 3, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al.are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Morgan et al. the respective distance of at least two modules area from the extension plane is a multiple of the thickness of the correspond photovoltaic module (Fig. 25a, #252 – Paragraph 0085).
In view of Claim 4, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 1-3. Mascolo et al. teaches that at least two modules areas are arranged at a tilt angle with respective to the extension plane and horizontal plane (Fig. 13 & Paragraph 0015 – module is tilted with an edge closer to the ground).
In view of Claim 7, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Mascolo et al. teaches that the tilt angle is between 5 and 40 degrees (Figure 5, the PV module is definitely tilted above 5 degrees and thus meeting this limitation).
In view of Claim 10, Mascolo et al. and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Mascolo et al. does not disclose each of the multiple vanes is configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane radius of curvature and a vane arc length.
Wildes et al. teaches multiple vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane radius of curvature and a vane arc length (it does have a length) that advantageously reduces wind load (Fig. 10, #94A-B & Paragraph 0065). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the configuration where multiples vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprise a radius of curvature as disclosed by Wildes et al. in modified Mascolo et al. system for the advantages of having a configuration that reduces wind load.
In view of Claim 13, Mascolo et al., Morgan et al., and Wildes et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Wildes et al. teaches the vane arc length depends on the tilt angle or vane radius of curvature (Paragraph 0065 – the wind shield is shaped and spaced a distance…to deflect wind…in order to reduce wind load”. Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that the vane arc length of Wildes et al. is shaped, which includes the arc length which is considered in regards to the wind hitting the wind shield at a tilted angle and the wind hitting the curvature of vane.
In view of Claim 14, Mascolo et al., Morgan et al., and Wildes et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. In regards to the limitation “wherein the van arc length is determined according to the following formula” and the subsequent recitation of the formula, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "determined according to". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
In view of Claim 15, Mascolo et al. and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mascolo et al. does not disclose that at least one of the multiple vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane arc length.
Wildes et al. teaches multiple vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane arc length that advantageously reduces wind load (Fig. 10, #94A-B & Paragraph 0065). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the configuration where multiples vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane arc length as disclosed by Wildes et al. in modified Mascolo et al. system for the advantages of having a configuration that reduces wind load.
In view of Claim 16, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Either of these references disclose there’s at least one in the front and back of the PV module, thus corresponding to 50%.
In view of Claim 17, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Either of these references disclose there’s at least one in the front and back of the PV module, thus corresponding to 50%.
In view of Claim 18, Mascolo et al. discloses a method for arranging at least two photovoltaic modules (Fig. 13 & Paragraph 0009) each comprising:
a respective module area being substantially perpendicular to the thickness of the corresponding photovoltaic module, each of the at least two module areas comprising two first sides being substantially perpendicular to the thickness of the corresponding photovoltaic module and being substantially parallel to each other and two second side being substantially perpendicular to the thickness of the corresponding photovoltaic module and being substantially parallel to each other and substantially perpendicular to the two first sides (See Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13, below);
wherein the at least two modules are arranged in a substantially parallel manner with respect to each other and are shifted with respect to each other in an extension direction of the system (See Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13, below); and
wherein at least one of the two photovoltaic modules comprises multiple vanes in a region of at least the two first sides (Fig. 16, #585 & Paragraph 0041 – wind deflectors are snapped into place above the east-west connections of Fig. 13), thus a wind deflector would be present on the “top” of the two first sides meeting the limitation of “multiple vanes being arrange din a region of…two first sides”.
Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13
PNG
media_image1.png
635
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a front surface substantially parallel to the respective module area and a back surface opposite to the front surface (See Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13, below);
Annotated Mascolo et al. Fig. 13
PNG
media_image2.png
451
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mascolo et al. does not disclose each of the multiple vanes is configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane radius of curvature and a vane arc length.
Wildes et al. teaches multiple vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane radius of curvature and a vane arc length (it does have a length) that advantageously reduces wind load (Fig. 10, #94A-B & Paragraph 0065). Wildes et al. teaches that these vanes direct airflow around at least one of the two first sides (Paragraph 0065 – deflect wind up and over the array of PV modules rather than under). In regards to them being “carried by at least one bridge element”, any of the underlying elements that support 94A/94B shown in Fig. 10 can be considered “bridge elements”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the configuration where multiples vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprise a radius of curvature as disclosed by Wildes et al. in modified Mascolo et al. system for the advantages of having a configuration that reduces wind load.
Mascolo et al. does not disclose that the at least two modules are arranged staggered with respect to an extension plane in the extension direction of the system and the extension direction being substantially parallel to the first sides.
Morgan et al. discloses at least two modules are staggered with respect to an extension plane in an extension direction of a system and the extension direction being substantially parallel to parallel first sides of modules for the advantage of having an improved heat shedding configuration (Figure 25a, the first sides are the sides of the PV modules going into the traditional “z-direction” & Paragraph 0085). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the at least two modules of Mascolo et al. be arranged so that they are staggered with respect to an extension plane in the extension direction of the system for the advantage of having the PV modules in a improved heat shedding configuration.
In view of Claim 19, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 18. Wildes et al. discloses that the multiple vanes are configured to guide wind to the front or back surface (Fig. 10, if the wind blows from left to right or right to left over the array in the “y-direction”, this limitation is satisfied).
In view of Claim 20, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mascolo et al. teaches the system comprises at least one vane being arranged in a region of at least one of the two second sides of the respective module of the correspond photovoltaic module (Fig. 16, #583 – blocks wind ingressing from the second side area).
In view of Claim 21, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Either of these references disclose there’s at least one in the front and back of the PV module, thus corresponding to 50%.
In view of Claim 22, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Mascolo et al. does not disclose that at least one of the multiple vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane arc length.
Wildes et al. teaches multiple vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane arc length that advantageously reduces wind load (Fig. 10, #94A-B & Paragraph 0065). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the configuration where multiples vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane arc length as disclosed by Wildes et al. in modified Mascolo et al. system for the advantages of having a configuration that reduces wind load.
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascolo et al. (US 2022/0123688 A1) in view of Wildes et al. (US 2013/0276867 A1) in view of Morgan et al. (US 2010/0126554 A1) in view of Wildes et al. (US 2016/0336895 A1).
In view of Claim 7, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al. ‘867, and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mascolo et al. does not explicitly disclose the tilt angle is between 5-40 degrees.
Wildes et al. ‘895 teaches that the tilt angle of a PV module is preferably within the range of 10-12 degrees (Paragraph 0055). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the tilt angle within the range of 10-12 degrees as disclosed by Wildes et al. in modified Mascolo et al. system as this is a preferred range for a PV module.
In view of Claim 23, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al. ‘867, and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mascolo et al. does not explicitly disclose the tilt angle is between 10-35 degrees.
Wildes et al. ‘895 teaches that the tilt angle of a PV module is preferably within the range of 10-12 degrees (Paragraph 0055). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the tilt angle within the range of 10-12 degrees as disclosed by Wildes et al. in modified Mascolo et al. system as this is a preferred range for a PV module.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascolo et al. (US 2022/0123688 A1) in view of Wildes et al. (US 2013/0276867 A1) in view of Morgan et al. (US 2010/0126554 A1) in view of Solar Frame “What is the solar panel thickness in 2020?”
In view of Claim 8, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al.are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Morgan et al. teaches that the respective distance is 30 mm or ~1.18 inches (Paragraph 0082) or 40 mm or ~1.57 inches (Paragraph 0085) but does not disclose the respective distance of at least one of the two module areas from the extension place is between 0.9 and 1.1 times the thickness of the corresponding photovoltaic module.
Solar Frame teaches that the most popular thickness for solar panels include 30 and 40 mm (Page 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either a 30 mm or 40 mm solar panel thickness as disclosed by Solar Frame as modified Mascolo et al. solar panel thickness as these are two of the most popular thicknesses for a solar panel.
Accordingly, this results in meeting the limitation of “the respective distance of at least one of the at least two modules are from the extension plane is 1 times the thickness of the corresponding photovoltaic module”.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascolo et al. (US 2022/0123688 A1) in view of Wildes et al. (US 2013/0276867 A1) in view of Morgan et al. (US 2010/0126554 A1) in view of Unbound Solar “Solar Panel Size Guide: How Big is A Solar Panel?”.
In view of Claim 9, Mascolo et al., Wildes et al., and Morgan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Mascolo et al. does not disclose the gap between each pair of the at least two module areas in the extension direction is between 0.045-0.055 times a dimension of one of the two first sides or the two second sides of one of the module areas of the respective pair.
Morgan et al. discloses that a typical size (like the gap in Mascolo et al.) can range from 1-50 cm, and that this is considered a practical distance (Paragraph 0096). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the gap distance in Mascolo et al. range from 1-50 cm as disclosed by Morgan et al., as this is considered a practical distance to one of ordinary skill in the art for a lateral gap between adjacent PV modules.
Unbound Solar discloses that traditional solar panels come in two common configurations where the lengths of the two first sides and the two second sides are selected from 39” and either 66” or 77” (Page 1 – Standard Solar Panel Sizes). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the lengths of the two first sides and the two second sides selected from 39” and either 66” or 77” as these are the two most common configurations for a solar cell.
Accordingly, this result in meeting the limitation of “gap between each pair of the at least two module areas in the extension direction is between 0.045-0.055 times a dimension of one of the two first sides or the two second sides of one of the module areas of the respective pair”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Wildes ‘867 does not disclose a bridge element that carries a vane much less a radius of curvature to direct airflow around at least one of the two first sides. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Wildes et al. teaches multiple vanes are configured in a curved manner and comprises a vane radius of curvature and a vane arc length (it does have a length) that advantageously reduces wind load (Fig. 10, #94A-B & Paragraph 0065). Wildes et al. teaches that these vanes direct airflow around at least one of the two first sides (Paragraph 0065 – deflect wind up and over the array of PV modules rather than under). In regards to them being “carried by at least one bridge element”, any of the underlying elements that support 94A/94B shown in Fig. 10 can be considered “bridge elements”.
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
