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 .
Summary
This is the response to the communication filed on 04/30/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-13 remain pending in the application.
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) 1, 4-7 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. (JP2002076416 with provided machine English translation) in view of Austin (US 2015/0326175) and Hildebrandt et al. (US 2020/0153380).
Addressing claim 1, Imazu discloses a vertical photovoltaic system (figs. 3, 7-9 and 12) comprising:
at least one bifacial rectangular photovoltaic module (the combination of the solar cell module 1 and the associated frame 5 as described in paragraph [0026] corresponds to the claimed photovoltaic module, this is consistent with the claimed photovoltaic module when it is read in light of the specification because page 10 lines 10-11 of specification states “the photovoltaic module 101 has a securing edge 108 configured to be secured to the posts 103. Preferably, the securing edge 108 is a frame”; in other words, the combination of the photovoltaic panel and the corresponding frame for securing the photovoltaic panel to the posts is the claimed photovoltaic module, similarly to the disclosure of Imazu), each module having:
two sides, referred to as “short sides” (the vertical sides in fig. 8),
two other sides, referred to as “long sides” (the horizontal sides), the length of which is greater than or equal to a length of the at least one short side;
at least two support posts 2 for supporting the photovoltaic module, each support post having:
a first portion configured to be secured to at least one such photovoltaic module (fig. 8);
a second portion configured to be directly secured to the ground (paragraph [0031] discloses the structural member 2 is configured to secure the solar cell modules vertically to the ground surface, which implicitly discloses a portion as the structural equivalence to the claimed second portion is that secured to the ground); and
at least one securing means (fixing bracket 4 [0031] or fixing bracket 6 [0031]) for securing the at least one such post to the long side of at least one such photovoltaic module (figs. 8-9);
each photovoltaic module being directly connected, via its two short sides, to the securing means of two consecutive support posts (figs. 2, 6 and 8-9);
which comprises no horizontal structural element, connecting two posts, arranged above the short side of a photovoltaic module farthest from the ground (fig. 9 shows no horizontal structural element, connecting two posts, arranged above the short side of the photovoltaic module farthest from the ground; the one horizontal element 3 is provided on short side closest to the ground).
Imazu is silent regarding the photovoltaic modules are directly connected via its two long sides to the securing means of two consecutive support posts and the second portion of the post comprises a lower segment anchored in the ground and an upper segment positioned at a height relative to the lower segment.
Austin discloses vertically positioned bifacial photovoltaic modules; wherein, the modules are attached between two consecutive posts in landscape position with their short sides being directly connected to the posts (fig. 18) similarly to the orientation of Imazu or portrait position where their long sides are directly connected to the posts in the claimed manner [0079]. Austin further discloses the photovoltaic system wherein no horizontal structural element is arranged above the short side of a photovoltaic module farthest from the ground (fig. 18 shows no horizontal structural element is arranged above the upper side of the photovoltaic module farthest from the ground, which would be the short side in the portrait position).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the vertical photovoltaic system of Imazu by substituting the known landscape orientation of the photovoltaic modules with the known portrait orientation of the photovoltaic modules as disclosed by Austin in order to obtain the predictable result of generating electrical power from vertically positioned photovoltaic modules by light impinging on both sides of the photovoltaic module (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Hildebrandt discloses a vertical photovoltaic system comprising bifacial photovoltaic modules positioned between two consecutive posts (fig. 1). Each post having a first portion 8 configured to be secured to the photovoltaic modules and a second portion 7 configured to be directly secured to the ground (fig. 1). The second portion comprises two segments, a lower segment anchored in the ground and an upper segment positioned at a height relative to the lower segment (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the posts of Imazu with the second portion having the first and second segments as disclosed by Hildebrandt in order to provide rigidity with regard to the foundation of the vertical photovoltaic system when the second portion 7 is rammed into the ground (Hildebrandt, [0022-0024]).
Addressing claim 4, paragraph [0026] of the translation document discloses the frame 5 of the photovoltaic module is secured to the post via bolts; furthermore, the brackets 4 and 6 correspond to the claimed clip system or gripper.
Addressing claim 5, see figs. 2, 6 and 9 for the claimed cross-sectional profile of the post.
Addressing claim 6, figs. 8-9 show the horizontal structural member 3 as the structural equivalence to the claimed at least one cross member arranged in the claimed manner with the means for securing the horizontal structural member to the opposing posts 2 as the structural equivalence to the claimed connecting means.
Addressing claim 7, fig. 5 shows the horizontal structural member has C-shaped cross-sectional profile.
Addressing claim 12, the C-shaped brackets 4 and 6 correspond to the claimed sliding link type since the photovoltaic modules are slidable within the c-shaped channel of the brackets before being secured via the bolts.
Addressing claim 13, the material of the at least one post 2 and/or at least one cross-member 3 is inherently light reflective because any material is light reflective in order to be visible.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. (JP2002076416 with provided machine English translation) in view of Austin (US 2015/0326175) and Hildebrandt et al. (US 2020/0153380) as applied to claims 1, 4-7 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Hormann (DE202020104397 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 3, Imazu is silent regarding at least one securing means has a plurality of attachment positions as claimed.
Hormann discloses a vertical photovoltaic system; wherein, photovoltaic modules are mounted vertically to the ground via posts 4 (fig. 1) via security means 6 (figs. 2-3). The securing means has a plurality of attachment positions (via holes 9 shown in fig. 6) configured to the position the photovoltaic module closer to or farther from the ground according to the attachment position height (paragraph [0012] of the translation document).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Imazu with the securing means having a plurality of holes 9 along the posts disclosed by Hormann in order to hang the photovoltaic modules on the post at different heights (Hormann, [0012]).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. (JP2002076416 with provided machine English translation) in view of Austin (US 2015/0326175) and Hildebrandt et al. (US 2020/0153380) as applied to claims 1, 4-7 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Kudo (JP2009021413 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 8 and 10, Imazu discloses in figs. 15-16 an alternative embodiment wherein at least one cross member 42 extends between a plurality of posts 41 for supporting the photovoltaic modules.
Imazu is silent regarding the limitations of current claims.
Kudo discloses a horizontal cross member (32+40) extending between vertical posts 20 for supporting photovoltaic modules; wherein, the cross member (32+40) is configured to at least partially enclose at least one post (the combination of the cross member 32 and bracket 40 encloses the vertical post 20, fig. 8) with the bracket as the structural equivalence to the claimed intermediate attachment portion configured to complete the enclosure around at least one post 20.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Imazu with the known intermediate attachment portion 40 for completing the enclosure around the at least one post as disclosed by Kudo in order to obtain the predictable result of attaching the horizontal crossmember to the vertical posts for supporting photovoltaic modules in the vertical orientation (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. (JP2002076416 with provided machine English translation) in view of Austin (US 2015/0326175) and Hildebrandt et al. (US 2020/0153380) as applied to claims 1, 4-7 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Perret (US 2024/0380362).
Addressing claim 9, Imazu is silent regarding the claimed limitation.
Perret discloses a system comprising vertically mounted photovoltaic modules supported by vertical posts (fig. 1). The system further comprises cross-member 34 extending between two posts (fig. 1). The cross-member 34 comprises an upper rim in contact with the module and a lower rim 69 configured to hold electrical cables connected to the photovoltaic modules (fig. 2A).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the cross-member of Imazu with the lower rim for holding the electrical cables connected to the photovoltaic modules as disclosed by Perret for guiding and protecting the electrical cables (Perret, [0041]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imazu et al. (JP2002076416 with provided machine English translation) in view of Austin (US 2015/0326175) and Hildebrandt et al. (US 2020/0153380) as applied to claims 1, 4-7 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (JP2004257100 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 11, Imazu is silent regarding the claimed limitation.
Ota discloses a system comprising vertically mounted photovoltaic modules by vertical posts (fig. 1) and cross-members 2 extending between two posts 1 (fig. 3). The system further comprises at least one connecting means 21 comprises at least one L-shaped intermediate attachment portion 21 (fig. 2). The L-shaped intermediate attachment portion comprising an upper portion 21 parallel to the long sides of the module, and configured to be secured to a post; and a lower portion 211, perpendicular to the upper portion and to the post, and configured to support the cross member 2 (figs. 2-3).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Imazu with the L-shaped intermediate attachment portions disclosed by Ota in order to obtain the predictable result of securing the cross-members between the vertical posts (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 05/19/2026
Prosecution Insights