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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Line 12 of the claim, it appears “the at least one projections” should be --the at least one projection-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 7: Lines 8-9 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a mounting surface”should be --the mounting surface-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 10: Lines 3-4 of the claim, the reference to claim 1 is redundant as the claim is directed to “The support device according to claim 1”. Examiner suggests amending “two support devices as described in claim 1” found in line 3-4 of the claim to be --two of the support devices--.
With regard to claim 11: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “at least one fastener member(s)” should be –at least one fastener member-- for clarity of the claim language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears “the mounting surface” should directed to --a mounting surface--.
With regard to claim 13: Lines 4-5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the support device” should be directed to --the at least one support device-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 8 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a mounting surface” should be directed to --the mounting surface--for consistency of the claim language. Lines 9-10 of the claim, it appears the limitation “at least one of the fastener members” should be directed to --the at least one fastener member-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 14: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the fastener member” should be directed to --the at least one fastener member-- for consistency of the claim language. Lines 2-3 of the claim, is appears the limitation “the base plate” should be directed to --the base plate section-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the support device” should be directed to --the at least one support device--.
With regard to claim 15: Line 5 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the protective pad” should be directed to --the at least one protective pad-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 6 of the claim, it appears “projections” should be singular for consistency of the claim language.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: at least one fixing element in claim 1; and a fastening member in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
With regard to claim 1: Line 10 of the claim, the limitation “the two free end portions” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --two free end portions--.
With regard to claim 6: Line 6 of the claim, the limitation “the profile leg” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the respective profile leg--.
With regard to claim 7: Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the two free end portions” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 6 of the claim, the limitation “the free end portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the respective end portion--. Line 9 of the claim, the limitation “the second and free end” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and appears incomplete. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the second section--.
With regard to claim 8: Line 3 of the claim, the limitation “the first section of the L-shaped bar” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It appears that the claim should be dependent on claim 7.
Claims 1-15 are examined as best understood.
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) 1-2, 5-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vollmer (DE 10 2010 062 026 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Vollmer discloses a support device (30) capable of mounting a solar module (110) on a mounting surface, the support device (30) (figs. 1-7) comprising:
a base body in the form of a U-shaped profile (330, 320, 350) having two profile legs (330, 350) and a base section (320) connecting the two profile legs (330, 350); whereby an outer surface of the base section (320) of the U-shaped profile (330, 320, 350) is configured to support a solar module (110), and whereby a profile depth of the U-shaped profile (330, 320, 350) increases along a longitudinal axis from a front face to a rear face of the U-shaped profile (330, 320, 350) (figs. 1-7); and
at each of two free end portions (bottom end portions) of the profile legs (330, 350), at least one projection (340, 360) protruding from the respective profile leg (330, 350), whereby the at least one projection (340, 360) are configured as a seating for placing the support device (20) on a mounting surface (figs. 1-4; par. [0070] of translation); and
at least one fixing element (344) which is configured to engage a fastening member (fastener) for attachment of the support device (30) to the mounting surface (fig. 5).
With regard to claim 2: Vollmer discloses that the two profile legs (330, 350) form side faces of the support device (30), which are closed for the most part along the entire length of the support device (30) in a direction along its longitudinal axis (figs. 1 and 3-4).
With regard to claim 5: Vollmer discloses that the support device (30) is configured for supporting the solar module (110) at an angle of 0-5 degrees, with respect to the mounting surface (figs. 1 and 3-4; par. [0002]). which overlaps the claimed range of 3° - 40°,
With regard to claim 6: Vollmer discloses that the at least one projection (340, 360) protruding from each the profile legs (330, 350) is a flat flange extending in parallel to the longitudinal axis along the free end portion of the respective profile leg (330, 350), and whereby, an angle between the flat flange and the respective profile leg (330, 35) falls in the range of about 70° - 110° (fig. 7; par. [0074]).
With regard to claim 9: Vollmer discloses that at least the base body is an integrally formed part, the base body is integrally formed with the projections (340, 360) and the fixing element (344) (figs. 1 and 3-5).
With regard to claim 10: Vollmer discloses at least one connector element (20A or 20B) capable of mechanically connecting two of said support devices with their rear faces of the U-shaped facing each other (fig. 1-2).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmer (DE 10 2010 062 026 A1).
With regard to claim 3: Vollmer appears to show that with respect to the to the total surface area of the profile legs (330, 350), the surfaces of the side faces of the profile legs (330, 350) are at least 75% closed (fig. 6).
However, Vollmer does not explicitly disclose that the surfaces of the side faces of the profile legs (330, 350) are at least 75% closed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available closed off configurations yielding the predictable results of providing profile legs with desired degree of strength and rigidity for support the solar module. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the surfaces of the side faces of the profile legs of Vollmer to be at least 75% closed. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 4: Vollmer discloses that at least one of the profile legs (330, 350) has a trapezoidal shape and the base section (320) has a rectangular shape (figs. 1-4), but does not disclose both profile legs have a trapezoidal shape.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available shapes for forming each profile leg in order to provide a desired aesthetic and/or angle for supporting the solar module. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying each profile leg to have a trapezoidal shape. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 8: Vollmer discloses that the at least one projection protruding (340, 360) from one of the profile legs (330, 350) comprises one or more openings (346) capable of mechanically attaching one or more protective pads (fig. 5).
However, Vollmer does not explicitly disclose that each of the profile legs comprises the one or more openings.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support device of Vollmer to have each of the profile legs comprise the one or more openings in order to provide further means of fastening to withstand greater load . No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying each of the profile legs to comprise the one or more openings. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11-15 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 combination of all the elements of the claimed support device including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record. Examiner notes that allowability of the claims are subject to reconsideration should the scope of the claims change.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to supporting devices for solar modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights