Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species E, F and R in the reply filed on 04/28/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 6, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Meine et al (PG Pub 20160268959).
Regarding claim 6, Mein et al teaches a solar array comprising:
a solar module having a solar module length [fig 22];
a mounting structure for the solar module; and
a cable management system that secures at least one cable for the solar module or the mounting structure [para 19], the cable management system comprising:
the body having length equal or greater than the solar module length [fig 6]
a lower flange extending directly from the interior surface of the body, the lower flange including a distal end; and
a cable management flange extending directly from the interior surface of the body above the lower flange, the cable management flange including distal end
the cable management flange and the lower flange define a cable cavity therebetween for retaining the at least one cable [fig 22 para 19
the distal ends of the lower flange and the cable management flange define an opening for inserting the at least one cable into the cable cavity [fig 22]
the cable management flange is arranged to engage the at least one cable and secure the at least one cable in the cable cavity [fig 22 para 19]
the lower flange and the cable management flange extend along the length of the body from the first end to the second end [fig 22]
PNG
media_image1.png
626
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the cable management flange extends at an angle relative to the lower flange [fig 14 22].
Regarding claim 11, Mein et al teaches a solar system associated with an array of solar modules [para 11]and include the cable management system comprising:
a body having a top, a bottom, and an interior surface extending vertically between the top and the bottom of the body [fig 22];
a lower flange extending directly from the interior surface of the body, the lower flange including a distal end, wherein the body defines an open recess above the lower flange [fig 22]; and
a cable management flange extending directly from the interior surface of the body above the lower flange, the cable management flange including a distal end,
wherein the cable management flange and the lower flange define a cable cavity therebetween for retaining at least one cable [fig 22 para 19]
wherein the distal ends of the lower flange and the cable management flange define an opening for inserting the at least one cable into the cable cavity [fig 22],
the cable management flange and the lower flange extend farther from the interior surface of the body than any other part of the cable management system [fig 22], and
wherein the open recess defines a path for the at least one cable to be inserted into the cable cavity without interacting with any parts of the cable management system other than the cable management flange and the lower flange [fig 22].
Regarding claim 12, Mein et al teaches the lower flange and the cable management
flange being integral with the body and extend along the length of the body [fig 22]
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, 3, 5-6, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meine et al (PG Pub 20160268959), and further in view of Heidmann (Pat No. 4406101).
Regarding claim 1, Mein et al teaches a solar system associated with an array of solar modules [para 11] comprising:
At least one cable (wire) [para 19
the cable management system comprising:
a body having a top, bottom and an interior surface extending vertically between the top and the bottom [fig 14]
a lower flange extending directly from the interior surface of the body, the lower flange including a distal end wherein the body defines an open recess from the bottom of the body to the top of the body [fig 14]; and
a cable management flange extending directly from the interior surface of the body above the lower flange, the cable management flange including a distal end, wherein the cable management flange divides the open recess into regions [fig 14 para 19],
wherein the cable management flange and the lower flange define a cable cavity therebetween for retaining at least one cable [para 19 fig 14],
wherein the distal ends of the lower flange and the cable management flange define an opening for inserting the at least one cable into the cable cavity [para 19],
wherein the cable management flange is arranged to engage the at least one cable and secure the at least one cable in the cable cavity [para 19],
a distance between the cable management flange and lower flange is less than a heigh of another region of the open recess [fig 14]
PNG
media_image2.png
650
905
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Meine et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Meine et al does not teach the cable management flange being flexible.
Heidmann teaches partition wireway comprising at least one flanges being flexible with sufficient stiffness to normally maintain the U-shape of the channel and thereby retain and conceal the cables (col 1 lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cable management flange to be flexible as taught by Heidmann for inserting, retaining and withdrawing the cables (col 1 lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 3, the cable management flange extends at an angle relative to the lower flange [fig 14 22].
Regarding claim 5, modified Meine et al teaches the cable management flange further comprises a first retention section and a second retention section, wherein the first retention section and the lower flange define a first cable region therebetween, and wherein the second retention section and the lower flange define a second cable region therebetween [fig 14]
PNG
media_image3.png
650
905
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Meine et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Meine et al does not teach the cable management flange being flexible.
Heidmann teaches partition wireway comprising at least one flanges being flexible with sufficient stiffness to normally maintain the U-shape of the channel and thereby retain and conceal the cables (col 1 lines 40-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cable management flange to be flexible as taught by Heidmann for inserting, retaining and withdrawing the cables (col 1 lines 40-49).
Claims 4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meine et al [PG pub 20160268959), and Heidmann (Pat No. 4406101) and further in view of West et al (PG Pub 20140182662).
Regarding claim 4, 7-8, modified Meine et al teaches the mounting flange as set forth above, but modified Meine et al does not teach a micro-inverter adapter being couple to mounting flange.
West et al teaches a solar system comprising a micro-inverter adapter being coupled to the back surface of the frame [fig 62 para 250] by rivet and having wires or conduit to be electrical connected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to attach the micro-inverter adapter with cable of West et al to the mounting flange of modified Meine et al since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 3-5, 11, 13, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 5, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12088242. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they required the same structure and limitation.
Claim 6 , 7-8 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12088242 in view of US 20160268959.
Regarding claim 6, ‘242 teaches the claimed structure except the body having length equal or greater than the solar module length. ‘959 teaches solar module having solar panel and frame with a body where the body having length equal or greater than the solar module length [fig 6],
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the length of the body to be greater or equal the solar module length since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 7-8 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 5, 10,
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights