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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive (Skip mount appears to be an industry name associated exclusively with Applicant’s solar panel mount). A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Solar Module Mount Installation System
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because, at line 16, “two structural clamps” should be –two of the structural clamps--.
Claim 4 is objected to because “to connect two solar modules in the second row of solar modules” should be, for example, --to connect the second-row solar module and another second-row module-- because claim 1 only recites one second-row module.
Claim 5 is objected to because “solar modules in a first row are in portrait orientation and solar modules in a second row of solar modules are in” should be, for example, --the first-row solar module comprises a plurality of first row solar modules, the first-row solar modules in portrait orientation and the second-row solar module comprises a plurality of second row solar modules, the second-row modules are in--.
Claim 6 is objected to because “solar modules in a first row are in portrait orientation and solar modules in a second row of solar modules are in” should be, for example, --the first-row solar module comprises a plurality of first row solar modules, the first-row solar modules in portrait orientation and the second-row solar module comprises a plurality of second row solar modules, the second-row modules are in--.
Claim 7 is objected to because “solar modules in a first row are in landscape orientation and solar modules in a second row of solar modules are in” should be, for example, --the first-row solar module comprises a plurality of first row solar modules, the first-row solar modules in landscape orientation and the second-row solar module comprises a plurality of second row solar modules, the second-row modules are in--.
Claim 16 is objected to because, at line 8, “a roof surface” should be –the roof surface--.
Claim 16 is objected to because, at line 9, “a second row” should be --the second row--.
Claim 20 is objected to because “a roof surface” should be –the roof surface--.
Claim 21 is objected to because “a roof surface” should be –the roof surface--.
Claim 22 is objected to because “root” should be –roof--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites the limitation "the" roof surface. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed the claim depends from claim 2.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stephan (11,848,636).
1. Stephan, figs. 4-10, teaches a mounting system (multi-rail system) for solar modules, the system comprising:
a first-row solar module (one of the bottom row of modules shown in fig. 9) having a bottom edge and a top edge opposite the bottom edge of the first-row solar module;
a second-row solar module (one of the second to bottom row of modules shown in fig. 9) having a bottom edge and a top edge opposite the bottom edge of the second-row solar module;
a structural clamp (502, 501) configured to connect the top edge of the first-row solar module to the bottom edge of the second-row solar module;
a first row 401 of one or more roof attachments positioned within a first half of the first-row solar module between the bottom edge of the first-row solar module and half of an up-roof length of the first-row solar module;
a second row 402 of one or more roof attachments positioned within a second half of the first-row solar module between the top edge of the first-row solar module and the half of the up-roof length of the first-row solar module;
a third row (the rail above rail 402, fig. 9) of one or more roof attachments configured to secure the second-row solar module, wherein the third row of roof attachments is positioned between the top edge of the second-row solar module and half of the up-roof length of the second-row solar module, fig. 9, and
two of the structural clamps, 502 and 501, that connect the first-row solar module to the second-row solar module, wherein the two of the structural clamps are positioned between the second row of roof attachments and the third row of roof attachments, fig. 9.
2. Stephan teaches the mounting system of claim 1, Stephan further teaching the roof attachments of one or more of the first row, the second row, and the third row are attached to a roof surface using one or more fasteners (“mount 405” is a fastener).
3. Stephan teaches the mounting system of claim 1, Stephan further comprising one or more module clamps 400 configured to attach the first-row solar module to the first row of roof attachments, col. 3, lines 46-66.
4. Stephan teaches the mounting system of claim 1, Stephan further teaching the structural clamp includes an up-roof side configured to connect two solar modules in the second row of solar modules (501 connects two modules at the up-roof side).
5. Stephan teaches the mounting system of claim 1, Stephan, fig. 9, further teaching solar modules in a first row are in portrait orientation and solar modules in a second row of solar modules are in portrait orientation.
6. Stephan teaches the mounting system of claim 1, Stephan, fig. 10, further teaching solar modules in a first row of solar modules are in portrait orientation, and wherein solar modules in a second row of solar modules are in landscape orientation.
8. Stephan teaches the mounting system of claim 1, Stephan further teaching a distance from the first attachment row to the second attachment row is less than the up-roof module length, fig. 9.
10. Stephan teaches the mounting system of claim 1, Stephan further teaching the structural clamps provide an electrical bond path from a first row of solar modules to a second row of solar modules, col. 2, lines 7-11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 16-17, 20, and 22-23 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan.
7. Stephan teaches the mounting system of claim 1, Stephan, fig. 11, further teaching solar modules in a first row of solar modules are in landscape orientation, but does not expressly teach solar modules in a second row of solar modules are in landscape orientation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for solar modules in a second row of solar modules to be in landscape orientation to accommodate a smaller vertical roof surface available solar module mounting area.
16. Stephan, figs. 4-10, teaches a method for installing mounting system for solar modules, the method comprising:
installing a first row 401 of one or more roof attachments to a roof surface using a first set of fasteners 405 (the attachments are shown installed using the fasteners);
installing a second row 402 of one or more roof attachments to the roof surface using a second set of fasteners 405, the second row of roof attachments positioned up-roof from the first row of roof attachments at a distance less than an up-roof length of a yet-to-be-installed first row of solar modules (the attachments are fastened first, the n the modules are attached); and
installing a third row (the rail above rail 402, fig. 9) of one or more roof attachments to a roof surface using a third set of fasteners 405, the third row of roof attachments positioned up-roof from the second row of roof attachments at a distance equal to the up-roof length of a yet-to-be-installed second row of solar modules (fig. 9 clearly shows the third row of roof attachments positioned up-roof from the second row of roof attachments at a distance equal to the up-roof length of the second row 106 of solar modules), but does not expressly disclose the distance equal to the up-roof length of a yet-to-be-installed second row of solar modules plus or minus 10 inches. Should Applicant disagree that Stephan teaches such distance equal to the up-roof length of a yet-to-be-installed second row of solar modules plus or minus 10 inches, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the distance to be equal to the up-roof length of a yet-to-be-installed second row of solar modules plus or minus 10 inches for system strength.
17. Stephan teaches the method of claim 16, Stephan further teaching the roof attachments are configured to receive one or more module clamps 400 for securing a solar energy module.
20. Stephan teaches the method of claim 16, Stephan further teaching the roof attachment is capable of spanning between two or more correspondingly dimensioned ribs on a roof surface, no dimensions of the ribs being claimed.
22. Stephan teaches the method of claim 16, Stephan further teaching the first row of solar modules are attached to the first row of roof attachments and the second row of roof attachments using a plurality of module clamps 400, and the second row of solar modules are attached to the third row of roof attachments using a plurality of module clamps 400; and the first row of solar modules and the second row of solar modules are attached together using a plurality of structural clamps, 501, 502.
23. Stephan teaches the method of claim 19, Stephan further teaching the structural clamps provide an electrical bond path from a first row of solar modules to a second row of solar modules, col. 2, lines 7-11.
Claim 9 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan in view of Elsinawai (11,881,807).
9. Stephan does not expressly teach the mounting system of claim 1, Stephan further teaching the solar modules are solar photovoltaic modules that produce between 300 and 800 Watts of electricity. Elsinawi teaches solar modules are solar photovoltaic modules that produce between 300 and 800 Watts (350 watts) of electricity, col. 1, lines 44-46. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the solar modules to be solar photovoltaic modules that produce between 300 and 800 Watts of electricity for maximum power generation.
Claim 11 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan ‘636 in view of Stephan (9,473,066).
11. Stephan ‘636 does not expressly teach the module clamps provide an electrical bond path between adjacent solar modules within a row of solar modules. Stephan ‘066 teaches the module clamps provide an electrical bond path between adjacent solar modules within a row of solar modules, col. 9, lines 55-59. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the module clamps to provide an electrical bond path between adjacent solar modules within a row of solar modules to prevent shorts.
Claims 12 and 24 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan in view of Stearns (11,012,023).
12. Stephan does not teach a structural clamp has a foot that abuts a roof surface. Stearns, fig. 2B, teaches a clamp has a foot 210 that abuts a roof surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the structural clamp to have a foot that abuts a roof surface for support.
24. Stephan does not teach a structural clamp has a foot that abuts a roof surface. Stearns, fig. 2B, teaches a clamp has a foot 210 that abuts a roof surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the structural clamp to have a foot that abuts a roof surface for support.
Claims 13-14 and 18-19 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan in view of Plaisted (7,900,407).
13-14. Stephan does not teach one or more of the roof attachments in one or more of the first row, the second row, and the third row have a sealing layer disposed on at least a portion of an underside surface, the sealing layer configured to create a watertight seal to the roof surface when the roof attachments are installed to the roof surface. Plaisted teaches roof attachments in rows have a sealing layer disposed on at least a portion of an underside surface, col. 7, lines 9-13. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one or more of the roof attachments in one or more of the first row, the second row, and the third row to have a sealing layer disposed on at least a portion of an underside surface, the sealing layer configured to create a watertight seal to the roof surface when the roof attachments are installed to the roof surface to prevent leaks.
18-19. Stephan does not teach the roof attachments have a sealing layer disposed on all or a portion of an underside surface, the sealing layer configured to create a watertight seal to a roof surface when the roof attachment is installed to the roof surface. Plaisted teaches roof attachments have a sealing layer disposed on all or a portion of an underside surface, the sealing layer configured to create a watertight seal to a roof surface when the roof attachment is installed to the roof surface, col. 7, lines 9-13. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the roof attachments to have a sealing layer disposed on all or a portion of an underside surface, the sealing layer configured to create a watertight seal to a roof surface when the roof attachment is installed to the roof surface to prevent leaks.
Claims 15 and 25 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan ‘636 in view of Jasmin (11,296,648).
15. Stephan does not teach, as best understood, the roof surface is metal. Jasmin teaches a roof surface is metal, figs. 31-34. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the roof surface to be metal for strength.
25. Stephan does not teach the roof surface is metal. Jasmin teaches a roof surface is metal, figs. 31-34. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the roof surface to be metal for strength.
Claim 21 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan ‘636 in view of Katz (12,556,127).
21. Stephan does not teach the roof fasteners for attaching a roof attachment to a roof surface are configured to threadably pierce and mechanically engage a roof surface. Katz teaches roof fasteners 22 for attaching a roof attachment 10 to a roof surface are configured to threadably pierce and mechanically engage a roof surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the roof fasteners for attaching the roof attachment to a roof surface to be configured to threadably pierce and mechanically engage a roof surface for strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights