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 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 1-5 and 8-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the photovoltaic module" and “the cable” in the last clause. It is unclear which of the plurality of photovoltaic modules and plurality of cables is being particularly referenced by the limitations. Clarification is requested. It is noted that the same deficiency was previously noted in claim 7, which has been incorporated into claim 1 in the amendment in the same manner it was presented previously, thus, the same issues remain.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “at least one of the positive cable and the negative cable is fixed to the side of the photovoltaic module close to the color steel tile through the at least one fixing portion”. However, claim 1 from which claim 4 depends upon already recited the limitation, such that this limitation is redundant. Additionally, claim 1 recites each of the cables to have the recited feature, such that claim 4 only requires at least one of the positive cable and the negative cable, where each of the cables comprises a positive cable and a negative cable, such that it is unclear how each cable is recited to have the feature in claim 1 yet in claim 4 it is only “at least one” of the two. Clarification is requested.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the cable”. It is unclear which of the “cables” from claim 1 is being referenced by the limitation. Similar deficiency is found in claim 10. Clarification is requested.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a distance between mounting point of adjacent is c”. It is unclear what is being referenced to being adjacent. Previously, the claim recited “adjacent second fixing members” and appears to have been removed without a replacement. Clarification is requested. Additionally, claim 12 was not marked as being amended and still has the status of “original”.
Further, claim 12 still contains the previously mentioned deficiency, such that claim 9 from which claim 12 depends upon has only recited at least one of the photovoltaic modules further includes a second fixing member, where claim 12 does not clearly define where the supposedly recited adjacent second fixing members are located to have a “distance c”. As set forth below in the Response to Arguments section, it appears Applicant is asserting the adjacent second fixing members can be from different photovoltaic modules, which would be new matter as that is not what the instant specification discloses. Clarification is requested.
Claim 15 recites “along the second direction, two adjacent first photovoltaic modules are connected to each other”. However, claim 14 from which claim 15 depends upon already recites “at least part of the first photovoltaic modules are connected to at least another one of the first photovoltaic modules on one side along the second direction”, which appears to be redundant.
Claim 16 recites “one end of one of the color steel tiles is provided with a plurality of first series-connection structures, and the plurality of first series-connection structures are sequentially arranged adjacent to each other along the second direction”.
It is unclear what exactly are “first series connection structures” that differs from what has already been recited in claims 14 and 15 from which claim 16 depends upon. Applicant asserts in the Remarks that “the first series-connection structure includes two first photovoltaic modules arranged at the outermost ends and two adjacent second photovoltaic modules arrange din the middle” as recited in claims 14 and 15, such that nowhere does claim 16 define the ”first series connection structures” as such. Additionally, it is unclear where is the “one end of one of the color steel tiles” and how it can be provided with a plurality of first series connection structures as recited with the definition provided by Applicant in the Remarks.
Further, it is unclear how “two ends of one of the color steel tiles are each provided with a plurality of first series connection structures” as recited in claim 17 with the definition provided by Applicant in the Remarks, as set forth above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “two ends of the first series connection structure are respectively connected to another one of the first photovoltaic modules along the first direction”. However, claim 15 from which claim 18 depends upon recites “two first photovoltaic modules are respectively connected to adjacent second photovoltaic modules along the first direction to form a first series connection structure”, where claim 14 recites “first photovoltaic modules arranged at two outermost ends”, such that it is unclear how two ends of the first series connection structure can be respectively connected to another one of the first photovoltaic modules along the first direction when first photovoltaic modules are arranged at the outermost ends in the first direction. Clarification is requested.
Claim 20 recites “the two first photovoltaic modules at the two outermost ends are respectively connected to adjacent second photovoltaic modules along the first direction”. However, this limitation has already been recited in claim 14, such that it is redundant.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 recites “along the second direction, two of the first photovoltaic modules spaced apart from each other are connected to each other, and the two first photovoltaic modules are respectively connected to adjacent second photovoltaic modules along the first direction”. However, these limitations have already been recited in claim 14 from which claim 19 depends upon and are redundant.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2024/0048087).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a photovoltaic component (100), comprising:
a plurality of color steel tiles (110 and 120; [0023]; it is inherent steel has a color such as grey), wherein adjacent color steel tiles of the plurality of color steel tiles are connected to each other along a width direction of the photovoltaic component (see Figure 1);
a plurality of photovoltaic modules (130a and 130b) mounted, along a thickness direction of the photovoltaic component, to a side of the color steel tiles (see Figure 1), wherein a plurality of cavities are formed between the photovoltaic modules and the color steel tiles (see Figure 1); and
cables each connecting to two adjacent photovoltaic modules (134; see Figures 3 and 15), wherein each of the cables is provided with at least one fixing portion (connection in the junction box where the cables are attached; see Figure 3) configured to fix the cable to a side of one of the photovoltaic modules close to a corresponding one of the color steel tiles (rear side), the cables are located in the cavities (see Figures 1 and 3, where the tapes 140a ), and along the thickness direction, the cables and the color steel tiles are not in contact with each other (see Figure 15, where the cables are connected to an adjacent module, such that they do not contact the color steel tiles),
wherein the color steel tiles each include at least one reinforcing portion (114, 118, 116) protruding towards the photovoltaic module (see Figure 1), the cable extends along a length direction of the corresponding photovoltaic module (see Figure 15, the cables extend parallel to the at least one reinforcing portions), and in the thickness direction of the photovoltaic component, a projection of the cable does not overlap with a corresponding one of the at least one reinforcing portion (see Figures 1 and 3, where the double-sided structural tapes 140a are adhered to the top surface of the bearing plates 114, 116, and 118; [0053]).
Chang does not expressly disclose a distance between two adjacent fixing portions is L3, and L3 ≤ 300 mm, but the reference discloses the width W1 of the photovoltaic module is between 360 mm and 1160 mm ([0047]), a distance d1 between at least one of the double-sided structural tapes 140a and a first edge of the solar panel is less than 7 mm ([0051]) and the sum of the widths W3 of the double sided structural tapes 140a is 150 mm when the width W1 is 360 mm ([0054]), which means there is at most 98 mm between the reinforcing portions in which the junction box is located and contains two adjacent fixing portions as shown in Figure 3.
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a distance between one of the cables and the corresponding one of the color steel tiles in the thickness direction is H, where 0 < H ≤ 200 mm (it is disclosed the height of the sheet ranges between 3 cm and 15 cm; [0067]; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a gap is formed between adjacent photovoltaic modules, and a width of the gap is L1, where 0 < L1 ≤ 200 mm (d4 is between 1 cm and 20 cm; [0067]; see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a length direction of the color steel tiles is defined as a first direction (d3), and a width direction of the color steel tiles is defined as a second direction (W1);
the photovoltaic modules are sequentially arranged along the first direction over the color steel tiles (see Figure 5), wherein the photovoltaic modules include first photovoltaic modules arranged at two outermost ends, and second photovoltaic modules arranged in the middle (there would inherently be photovoltaic modules at the outermost ends and photovoltaic modules in the middle);
at least part of the first photovoltaic modules are connected to at least another one of the first photovoltaic modules on one side along the second direction (the photovoltaic modules are interconnected in an array, such that they are all connected to one another); and
the second photovoltaic modules are connected to the first photovoltaic modules on at least one side along the first direction (the cable extends in the first direction, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 15, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses along the second direction, two adjacent first photovoltaic modules are connected to each other (the photovoltaic modules are interconnected in an array, such that they are all connected to one another), and the two first photovoltaic modules are respectively connected to adjacent second photovoltaic modules along the first direction to form a first series-connection structure (the cable extends in the first direction, as set forth above; [0060]).
Regarding claim 16, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses one end of one of the color steel tiles is provided with a plurality of first series-connection structures (the photovoltaic modules are connected in series in the first direction), and the plurality of first series-connection structures are sequentially arranged adjacent to each other along the second direction (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses two ends of one of the color steel tiles are each provided with a plurality of first series-connection structures (the photovoltaic modules are connected in series in the first direction, so there is a series-connection structure at all of the ends), and the first series-connection structures at the two ends are arranged in a staggered manner (the series connection structure of the first row and the series connection structure of the second row are staggered).
Regarding claim 18, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses two ends of the first series-connection structure are respectively connected to another one of the first photovoltaic modules along the first direction (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses along the second direction, two of the first photovoltaic modules spaced apart from each other are connected to each other, and the two first photovoltaic modules are respectively connected to adjacent second photovoltaic modules along the first direction (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 20, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses along the second direction, adjacent first photovoltaic modules are sequentially connected to each other (as set forth above), and the two first photovoltaic modules at the two outermost ends are respectively connected to adjacent second photovoltaic modules along the first direction (as set forth above); or along the second direction, one of the first photovoltaic modules is connected to another one of the first photovoltaic modules through one of the cables that bypasses an end of the color steel tile along the first direction.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2024/0048087).
Regarding claim 4, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses each of the cables comprises a positive cable and a negative cable which are connected to each other through a joint (where the two cables are joined together), one of two adjacent photovoltaic modules is connected with the positive cable, the other one of the two adjacent photovoltaic modules is connected with the negative cable (see Figure 15),
at least one of the positive cable and the negative cable is fixed to the side of the photovoltaic module close to the color steel tile through the at least one fixing portion (see Figure 3).
While modified Chang does not expressly disclose along the thickness direction of the photovoltaic component, a projection of the joint does not overlap with the gap, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for the location of the joint in the device of modified Chang, such that the location of the joint is either located at a position such that the projection of the joint overlaps with the gap or it does not overlap with the gap. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where a projection of the joint does not overlap with the gap in the device of modified Chang, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the photovoltaic modules each include a main body portion (see Figure 1), each of the at least one fixing portion comprises a first fixing member arranged on the main body portion (fixing portion is inside the junction box that is arranged on the main body portion; see Figure 3), the main body portion includes a first side and a second side arranged opposite to each other along a length direction of the main body portion (d3) and a third side and a fourth side arranged opposite to each other along a width direction of the main body portion (W1; see Figure 3).
While Chang does not expressly disclose along the length direction of the main body portion, a distance between a mounting point of the first fixing member and the first side or the second side is L4, where 0 mm ≤ L4 ≤ 1000 mm, the reference discloses the longitudinal length of the solar panel is between 49 cm and 199 cm ([0066]), such that the distance between the mounting point of the first fixing member and the first side or the second side must be less than 49 cm to 199 cm.
Additionally, while Chang does not expressly disclose along the width direction of the main body portion, a distance between the mounting point of the first fixing member and the third side or the fourth side is L5, where 0 mm ≤ L5 ≤ 350 mm, the reference discloses the width W1 is between 360 mm and 1160 mm ([0047]), such that the distance between the mounting point and the third or fourth side must be less than those dimensions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2024/0048087) in view of Toyomura et al. (US 6,207,889).
Regarding claim 5, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses above the distance between two adjacent fixing portions is less than 300 mm, but the reference does not expressly disclose a distance between one of the at least one fixing portion and the corresponding joint is L2, where 0 < L2 ≤ 200 mm.
Toyomura discloses in a solar tile module, if the electrical wire is long upon installation completion, the electrical wire with a connector may be sandwiched between the solar battery module and a core rafter or between an eaves side coupling of a horizontal tile and remain in such a sandwiched state or be damaged (C3/L58-C4/L4).
Therefore, as the integrity of the photovoltaic module and the amount of wire required and, thus, the cost of construction are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said distance between the fixing portion and the joint, with said integrity of the photovoltaic module decreasing and the cost of construction increasing as the distance between the fixing portion and the joint is increased, the precise distance between the fixing portion and the joint would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance between the fixing portion and the joint cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between the fixing portion and the joint in the apparatus of Chang to obtain the desired balance between the integrity of the photovoltaic module and the cost of construction (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Alternatively, claims 1-4 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2024/0048087) in view of Suganuma et al. (US 2012/0118382) in view of Toyomura et al. (US 6,207,889).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a photovoltaic component (100), comprising:
a plurality of color steel tiles (110 and 120; [0023]; it is inherent steel has a color such as grey), wherein adjacent color steel tiles of the plurality of color steel tiles are connected to each other along a width direction of the photovoltaic component (see Figure 1);
a plurality of photovoltaic modules (130a and 130b) mounted, along a thickness direction of the photovoltaic component, to a side of the color steel tiles (see Figure 1), wherein a plurality of cavities are formed between the photovoltaic modules and the color steel tiles (see Figure 1); and
cables each connecting to two adjacent photovoltaic modules (134; see Figures 3 and 15), the cables are located in the cavities, and along the thickness direction, the cables and the color steel tiles are not in contact with each other (see Figure 15),
wherein the color steel tiles each include at least one reinforcing portion (110 and 120) protruding towards the photovoltaic module (see Figure 1), the cable extends along a length direction of the corresponding photovoltaic module (see Figure 15), and in the thickness direction of the photovoltaic component, a projection of the cable does not overlap with a corresponding one of the at least one reinforcing portion (see Figures 1 and 3).
Chang does not expressly disclose each of the cables is provided with at least one fixing portion configured to fix the cable to a side of the photovoltaic module close to a corresponding one of the color steel tiles.
Suganuma discloses that it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cable holding member 13 and a band 17 to fasten the cable 8 to increase workability (abstract), such that unfastened cables can be damaged or come in contact with other structural objects ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least one fixing portion configured for fixing the cable to the photovoltaic module, as taught by Suganuma, so that the cables can be prevented from being damaged or come into contact with other structural objects, as set forth above.
Modified Chang does not expressly disclose a distance between two adjacent fixing portions is L3, and L3 ≤ 300 mm, but the reference discloses the longitudinal length d3 of the photovoltaic module is between 49 cm and 199 cm ([0066]) and Suganuma discloses the use of at least two fixing portions for each photovoltaic module (see Figure 2), which means the distance between the two fixing portions for each photovoltaic module is between 16.3 cm and 66.3 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a distance between one of the cables and the corresponding one of the color steel tiles in the thickness direction is H, where 0 < H ≤ 200 mm (it is disclosed the height of the sheet ranges between 3 cm and 15 cm; [0067]; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a gap is formed between adjacent photovoltaic modules, and a width of the gap is L1, where 0 < L1 ≤ 200 mm (d4 is between 1 cm and 20 cm; [0067]; see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses each of the cables comprises a positive cable and a negative cable which are connected to each other through a joint (cable box 190), one of two adjacent photovoltaic modules is connected with the positive cable, the other one of the two adjacent photovoltaic modules is connected with the negative cable (see Figure 15),
at least one of the positive cable and the negative cable is fixed to the side of the photovoltaic module close to the color steel tile through the at least one fixing portion (see Figure 3).
While modified Chang does not expressly disclose along the thickness direction of the photovoltaic component, a projection of the joint does not overlap with the gap, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for the location of the joint in the device of modified Chang, such that the location of the joint is either located at a position such that the projection of the joint overlaps with the gap or it does not overlap with the gap. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where a projection of the joint does not overlap with the gap in the device of modified Chang, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the photovoltaic modules each include a main body portion (see Figure 1).
Suganuma further discloses each of the at least one fixing portion comprises a first fixing member arranged on the main body portion (see Figures 7 and 8), the main body portion includes a first side and a second side arranged opposite to each other along a length direction of the main body portion (see Figure 2) and a third side and a fourth side arranged opposite to each other along a width direction of the main body portion (see Figure 2).
While modified Chang does not expressly disclose along the length direction of the main body portion, a distance between a mounting point of the first fixing member and the first side or the second side is L4, where 0 mm ≤ L4 ≤ 1000 mm, the reference discloses the longitudinal length of the solar panel is between 49 cm and 199 cm ([0066]), such that the distance between the mounting point of the first fixing member and the first side or the second side must be less than 49 cm to 199 cm.
Additionally, while modified Chang does not expressly disclose along the width direction of the main body portion, a distance between the mounting point of the first fixing member and the third side or the fourth side is L5, where 0 mm ≤ L5 ≤ 350 mm, the reference discloses the width W1 is between 360 mm and 1160 mm ([0047]), such that the distance between the mounting point and the third or fourth side must be less than those dimensions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the main body portion includes a port (it is well known in the art by one of ordinary skill in the art the junction box comprises a port in which the cables are extended from within the photovoltaic module), the cable is connected to the main body portion through the port (as set forth above), and the first fixing member is configured to fix an end of the cable away from the port (as shown in Figure 2 of Suganuma).
While modified Chang does not expressly disclose at least one of the photovoltaic modules further includes a second fixing member, along an extension direction of the cable, the second fixing member is located between the port and the first fixing member and is configured to fix the cable, it is noted that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 10, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While the reference does not expressly disclose at least one of the photovoltaic modules includes a plurality of second fixing members, and the second fixing members are distributed at intervals along the extension direction of the cable, it is noted that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Chang does not expressly disclose a distance between the port and a mounting point of the second fixing portion adjacent to the port is b, where 0 mm≤b≤100 mm, it was set forth above that the reference discloses the width W1 is between 360 mm and 1160 mm ([0047]), such that the second fixing portion would be located less than half of the width from the port.
As the integrity of the photovoltaic module and the amount of fixing portions required and, thus, the cost of construction are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said distance between the port and the mounting point of the second fixing portion, with said integrity of the photovoltaic module and the cost of construction decreasing as the distance between the port and the mounting point of the second fixing portion is increased, the precise distance between the port and the mounting point of the second fixing portion would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance between the port and the mounting point of the second fixing portion cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between the port and the mounting point of the second fixing portion in the apparatus of modified Chang to obtain the desired balance between the integrity of the photovoltaic module and the cost of construction (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Chang does not expressly disclose a distance between mounting points of adjacent second fixing members is c, where 0 mm≤c≤100 mm, it was set forth above that the reference discloses the width W1 is between 360 mm and 1160 mm ([0047]), such that the second fixing portion would be located less than half of the width from each other.
As the integrity of the photovoltaic module and the amount of fixing portions required and, thus, the cost of construction are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said distance between the mounting points of adjacent second fixing portions, with said integrity of the photovoltaic module and the cost of construction increasing as the distance between the mounting points of adjacent second fixing portions is decreased, the precise distance between the mounting points of adjacent second fixing portions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance between the mounting points of adjacent second fixing portions cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between the mounting points of adjacent second fixing portions in the apparatus of modified Chang to obtain the desired balance between the integrity of the photovoltaic module and the cost of construction (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 13, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses at least one of the cables includes a first cable and a second cable (see Figure 3), the first cable of each of the photovoltaic modules is configured to be electrically connected to the second cable of another one of the photovoltaic modules (see Figure 15).
Suganuma further discloses at least one of the first cable and the second cable connected to each other includes a bending section (see Figure 2). It is noted that depending on the length of the cable, a bending section would be present.
Regarding claim 14, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a length direction of the color steel tiles is defined as a first direction (d3), and a width direction of the color steel tiles is defined as a second direction (W1);
the photovoltaic modules are sequentially arranged along the first direction over the color steel tiles (see Figure 5), wherein the photovoltaic modules include first photovoltaic modules arranged at two outermost ends, and second photovoltaic modules arranged in the middle (there would inherently be photovoltaic modules at the outermost ends and photovoltaic modules in the middle);
at least part of the first photovoltaic modules are connected to at least another one of the first photovoltaic modules on one side along the second direction (the photovoltaic modules are interconnected in an array, such that they are all connected to one another); and
the second photovoltaic modules are connected to the first photovoltaic modules on at least one side along the first direction (the cable extends in the first direction, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 15, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses along the second direction, two adjacent first photovoltaic modules are connected to each other (the photovoltaic modules are interconnected in an array, such that they are all connected to one another), and the two first photovoltaic modules are respectively connected to adjacent second photovoltaic modules along the first direction to form a first series-connection structure (the cable extends in the first direction, as set forth above; [0060]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses one end of one of the color steel tiles is provided with a plurality of first series-connection structures (the photovoltaic modules are connected in series in the first direction), and the plurality of first series-connection structures are sequentially arranged adjacent to each other along the second direction (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses two ends of one of the color steel tiles are each provided with a plurality of first series-connection structures (the photovoltaic modules are connected in series in the first direction, so there is a series-connection structure at all of the ends), and the first series-connection structures at the two ends are arranged in a staggered manner (the series connection structure of the first row and the series connection structure of the second row are staggered).
Regarding claim 18, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses two ends of the first series-connection structure are respectively connected to another one of the first photovoltaic modules along the first direction (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses along the second direction, two of the first photovoltaic modules spaced apart from each other are connected to each other, and the two first photovoltaic modules are respectively connected to adjacent second photovoltaic modules along the first direction (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 20, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses along the second direction, adjacent first photovoltaic modules are sequentially connected to each other (as set forth above), and the two first photovoltaic modules at the two outermost ends are respectively connected to adjacent second photovoltaic modules along the first direction (as set forth above); or along the second direction, one of the first photovoltaic modules is connected to another one of the first photovoltaic modules through one of the cables that bypasses an end of the color steel tile along the first direction.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2024/0048087) in view of Suganuma et al. (US 2012/0118382) in view of Toyomura et al. (US 6,207,889).
Regarding claim 5, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses above the distance between two adjacent fixing portions is less than 300 mm, but the reference does not expressly disclose a distance between one of the at least one fixing portion and the corresponding joint is L2, where 0 < L2 ≤ 200 mm.
Toyomura discloses in a solar tile module, if the electrical wire is long upon installation completion, the electrical wire with a connector may be sandwiched between the solar battery module and a core rafter or between an eaves side coupling of a horizontal tile and remain in such a sandwiched state or be damaged (C3/L58-C4/L4).
Therefore, as the integrity of the photovoltaic module and the amount of wire required and, thus, the cost of construction are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said distance between the fixing portion and the joint, with said integrity of the photovoltaic module decreasing and the cost of construction increasing as the distance between the fixing portion and the joint is increased, the precise distance between the fixing portion and the joint would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance between the fixing portion and the joint cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between the fixing portion and the joint in the apparatus of modified Chang to obtain the desired balance between the integrity of the photovoltaic module and the cost of construction (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the numerous 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been addressed by the amendments. However, some issues remain and new issues have been introduced, as set forth above.
Applicant states that regarding claim 4, the limitation mentioned is not redundant because further defining the positive cable and negative cable is not redundant. However, Applicant has not answered the more than one unclear instance of the limitation, where the limitation is not merely redundant. Applicant is encouraged to reread the 112 (b) rejection for claim 4 clearly.
Applicant states that regarding claim 12, claim 9 has been amended to introduce one or more photovoltaic modules and adjacent second fixing members will be reasonably directed to adjacent photovoltaic modules. However, if this is the interpretation Applicant is using for the claim limitations in claim 12, then it is new matter because according to the instant specification, distance c is shown in Figure 11 between adjacent second fixing members on the same photovoltaic module and is not directed to any two “adjacent” second fixing members that can be on two different adjacent photovoltaic modules as Applicant asserts.
Applicant states that regarding claim 18, the “first series connection structure” includes two first photovoltaic modules arranged at the outermost ends and two adjacent second photovoltaic modules arranged in the middle, then a first series connection structure can also be connected to another first photovoltaic module when a row (i.e. along the first direction) contains three photovoltaic modules like in Figure 17.
However, it is unclear how the three photovoltaic modules like in Figure 17 clearly explains what claim 18 recites. First of all, based on what Applicant is stating, the first series connection structure requires at least four photovoltaic modules already, where there are two first photovoltaic modules and two second photovoltaic modules. Second of all, somehow the first series connection structure as defined by Applicant in the Remarks is further connected to another first photovoltaic module in the first direction. And then finally, somehow this configuration is best represented by the three photovoltaic modules as shown in Figure 17.
Applicant argues that Toyomura does not teach the distance between multiple fixing portions.
However, as set forth above, modified Chang was found to disclose overlapping ranges with the claimed distance between two adjacent fixing portions.
Additionally, the claims were rejected using two interpretations of Chang, such that the first interpretation does not rely on Toyomura, as set forth above, and teaches the claimed feature.
Applicant argues that Chang does not disclose the projection of the cable does not overlap with the reinforcing portion. However, as set forth previously and as clearly seen in figure 3 of Chang, the cable does not overlap with the reinforcing portion because Chang explicitly stated the cable is in the corresponding accommodation space ([0049] and [0060]), where double sided adhesive tape 140a in Figure 3 corresponds to the reinforcing portions 114, 116 and 118.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be persuasive.
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722