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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/10/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN212641974U to Jie (machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 14, Jie teaches a photovoltaic (“PV”) module mounting system comprising
A first PV module (left element 60 in Fig. 12) and a second PV module (right element 60) each including a perimeter frame (Fig. 1), each perimeter frame having a first side 30 and a second side 40 opposed from the first side (in the up-down direction of Fig. 1), and each perimeter frame having a third side 20 and a fourth side 10 opposed from the third side (in the left right direction; middle p. 5 of translation)
A first rail and a second rail (Fig. 13 illustrates a cross section of a rail 80 which supports adjacent modules 60 at respective sides 30, 40, the bottom half of p. 10 of the translation discusses the arrangement of adjacent modules; a skilled artisan would understand that two adjacent PV modules 60, arrayed from left to right as shown in Fig. 12, would necessarily need one rail 80 to support the first side 30 of each adjacent rail and a distinct rail 80 to support the second side 40 of each adjacent rail, displaced with respect to each other but running parallel to the first and second sides; A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim even if the reference does not describe "the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015), MPEP §2131.02.III.), each having a mounting surface (top surface of exemplary rail 80 in Fig. 13) adapted to support the first and second PV modules, the first and second rails being disposed in a substantially parallel spaced relation to each other and being adapted to be secured to a support structure BS
The first and second PV modules being secured to the first and second rails (rails 80 support the first and second PV modules, therefore the modules are secured to the first and second rails by at least by gravity or friction, such as described at the top of p. 12 of the translation) adjacent to each other and forming a first gap therebetween (Fig. 12), and the fourth side 10 of the first PV module has a first projection 11 extending therefrom (Figs. 2, 3), wherein the first projection of the first PV module is disposed above and extends over and completely covers the first gap.
Per claim 10, Jie teaches the limitations of claim 9. The third side 20 of the second PV module has a second projection 21 extending therefrom (Figs. 4, 5), wherein the first projection 11 of the first PV module is disposed above and extends over the second projection of the second PV module.
Per claim 14, Jie teaches the limitations of claim 10. The second projection 21 has an upper surface having a groove extending along a length thereof (element 21 shown in Figs. 4, 5 extends into and out of the page as is clear from Fig. 1, and therefore forms a groove).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jie as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 4,336,413 to Tourneux.
Regarding claim 11, Jie teaches the limitations of claim 10. The location of the first gap (illustrated in Fig. 12 of Jie), the first (left) PV module is disposed above the second (right) PV module (projection 11 of the left module overlies projection 21 of the right module). Jie is clear that the first and second rails, and the mounting system, are deployed on a roof (p. 6, 7 of translation), but does not specifically teach that the first and second rails are secured to a support structure on an incline. Tourneux teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to secure the first and second rails to a support structure (as similar rails 72, 82 are secured to support structure 73 in Figs. 7, 8, C5/L29-51) on an incline (as illustrated in Fig. 3) so that the system may function on a roof and so water will be directed away from the modules (C3/L22-25, C3/L26-33, C6/L59-C7/L3).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Jie teaches the limitations of claim 10. Jie is clear that the mounting system of that invention is capable of accommodating at least two modules (Ibid.). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a third PV module in order to accommodate additional energy needs (Fig. 4 of Tourneux explicitly shows four modules, C1/L4-12, C7/L1-3), and further to include a third PV module in the same direction the first and second modules are separated in order to achieve those benefits (C2/L1-7, including “when several panels are assembled side by side by lateral partial overlapping” [emphasis added]).
As such, a skilled artisan would form the third PV module of modified-Jie to have a perimeter frame, the perimeter frame having a first side 30 and a second side 40 opposed therefrom (as described for the modules above), and having a third side 20 and a fourth side 10 opposed from the third. Indeed, in a laterally array of three panels suggested by the combination of references, the first side of the third PV module is secured to the first rail and the second side of the third PV module is secured to the second rail (the first and second rails described in the rejection above are not explicitly connected to the respective first and second sides, but the distinction is arbitrary within the scope of the instant claim). As described by Jie in view of Tourneux, the third PV module of modified-Jie is disposed adjacent to the second PV module (if Fig. 6 is a description of the gap between the first, left and second, right PV modules, the third module is out of the frame of Fig. 6 to the right) forming a second gap therebetween, and the fourth side 10 of the second PV module has a first projection 11 extending therefrom which is disposed above and extends over and covers the second gap (exactly as shown in Figs. 6, 12, with the left module exemplifying the second module and the right module exemplifying the third).
Per claim 13, the third side 20 of the third PV module has a second projection 21 extending therefrom (Figs. 4, 5), wherein the first projection 11 of the second PV module is disposed above and extends over the second projection of the third PV module.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jie as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 15, Jie teaches the limitations of claim 9. As illustrated in Fig. 13, the first and second rails 80 each have a base wall (flat bottom) and opposed first and second sidewalls (extending up-down in the frame) extending upward therefrom, the first and second sidewall each having a flange (top portion) extending inwardly therefrom, the flanges forming the mounting surface for supporting the first and second PV modules (Ibid.). However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the first and second rails each having first and second sidewalls extending outwardly from the base wall (as the two outer angled walls of element 70 of Fig. 12 extend away from the similar bottom wall), the flanges of each sidewall extending outwardly from the first and second sidewalls and forming the respective mounting surface, as it would have merely required the substitution of one rail for another having the same function. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7, 8 of the Remarks filed 7/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of the subject matter of claims 16 and 17, similar to the scope of new claims 14 and 15, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The of rejection of claims 16 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 25 allowed.
Claims 16 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights