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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-9 are examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because regardless of search method, invention of different limitations will require different search strategies, and times to consider the relevancy of collective references would increase proportionally as well. In addition, applicant is relying on methods of connection between mount, rail, module, and torque tube for patentability in group II that are not limitations of group I.
Applicant is reminded that upon allowance, any claim containing all the limitations of an allowable claim will be rejoined. But, if rejoinder is desired, the instant application will be subject to a double patent with other patents by the same assignee, FTC Solar, LLC, that do not qualify for prior art due to time, nor for a double patent rejection due to the restriction requirement currently in place (see patent Mouniandy et al. US 11,984,842).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creasy et al. (US 2022/0271706) in view of Almy et al. (US 2017/0294870).
Regarding claim 1, Creasy discloses a mounting assembly for securing a solar panel assembly (see abstract) the mounting assembly comprising: a saddle (seating portion 320) including a first sidewall, a second sidewall, (two lateral walls 324) and a base wall (base surface 322) extending between the first sidewall and the second sidewall (shown in fig. 3A), the first sidewall and the second sidewall defining a gap sized to receive the support rail (module rail 120, shown in fig. 1) (see para [0051] and [0060]);
a clip assembly (clamp body), the clip assembly including a clip (312/314/316) and a fastener (340) (see para [0050]-[0059]); and
a locking device (530) connected to the clip assembly (connected to clip assembly via saddle portion, i.e., seated body 520/320, see fig. 5A) and shaped to engage the first sidewall and the second sidewall (shown in fig. 5A),
the fastener being shaped to receive the clip under tension and clamp the support rail to the rotatable tube (shown in fig. 1C, see para [0059]).
The limitation that the clip assembly is sized to extend around a rotatable tube is intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Creasy discloses the intended use as shown in fig. 1C.
The limitation that the locking device is able to be inserted into a slot in a photovoltaic module support rail to connect the clip assembly to the support rail is intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Creasy discloses the intended use (see para [0063]-[0064]).
Creasy does not disclose the fastener of the clip assembly is a cam plate.
Almy is analogous art to Creasy as Almy discloses a mounting assembly for securing a solar cell module (see abstract). Almy discloses a clip assembly including a clip (PV module bracket 100) and a cam plate (i.e. toggle clamp 502) (shown in fig. 5C, see para [0059], wherein the cam plate tightens around the torque tube 500).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., the cam plate/toggle clamp disclosed by Almy) for antother known device (i.e., the fastener disclosed by Creasy), wherein the result is predictable (i.e. the clip/clamp tightened to create a clamping force, i.e. tighten around torque tube).
The statements in the preamble that the photovoltaic module is mounted “to a rotatable tube of a solar tracker, the solar panel assembly including a support rail on a back side of the solar panel assembly, the support rail defining a slot” is determined to be intended use within the preamble and is given no patentable weight and is not examined. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Regarding claim 2, modified Creasy discloses a mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the locking device (530) includes a stop (U-shaped body) and a distal tip (tips of clip) (see para [0063]-[0064]) the stop contacting the first sidewall (shown in Creasy figs. 5D or 5E).
The limitation that the distal tip is sized to be inserted through a slot (in the photovoltaic rail) is intended use and is given weight to the extent the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Creasy discloses the intended use (see Creasy para [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Creasy discloses a mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the locking device (530) includes a body shaped to extend around the first sidewall, the base wall, and the second sidewall (see Creasy figs. 5A-5e, para [0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Creasy discloses a mounting assembly of claim 3, wherein the locking device includes a hook portion (tip portion of 530 that penetrates sidewall) extending obliquely relative to the first sidewall (see Creasy figs. 5A-5D, para [0063]-[0064]).
The limitation that the hook portion is sized to extend into the slot is intended use and is given weight to the extent the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Creasy discloses the intended use (see Creasy para [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Creasy discloses the mounting assembly of claim 3, wherein the clip is attached to the body of the locking device (i.e., the clip is attached to the body of the locking device via the saddle (i.e., seated body) (see Creasy fig. 5A, para [0064]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Creasy discloses a mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the first sidewall defines an additional slot therein, and wherein the locking device is insertable through the additional slot in the saddle (shown in Creasy figs. 5A-5E, see para [0063]-[0064]).
The limitation that the locking device portion which is insertable in the first sidewall is also insertable into the slot in the support rail to connect the saddle to the support rail is intended use and is given weight to the extent the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Creasy discloses the intended use (see Creasy para [0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Creasy discloses a mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the clip is attached to the saddle (shown in Creasy figs. 3 and 5, see para [0050]-[0059].
Regarding claim 8, modified Creasy discloses a mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the cam plate includes an exterior surface defining a notch therein, the notch shaped to receive the clip under tension (shown in Almy figs. 5A and 5C, see para [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Creasy disclose a mounting assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose in the embodiment cited (i.e., cited figs. 3 and 5) wherein the saddle includes a pair of projections extending outwards of the base wall, the pair of projections spaced to engage the rotatable tube and defining a recess sized to receive at least a portion of the rotatable tube.
In an alternate embodiment, Creasy discloses a pair of projections extending outwards of the base wall (see Creasy figs. 14A-14B, see para [0044] and [0083]-[0085], see mark-up of fig. below), wherein the projections are spaced on each side to engage with clip and define a recess (shown in figs. 14A-14B).
The court has held it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e. from two embodiments of Creasy) according to known methods (as disclosed by Creasy), wherein the result is predictable.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
1242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitation that the recess formed by the space of the projections and the size of the formed recess are spaced and sized to engage and receive at least a portion of the rotatable tube is intended use. Creasy discloses the intended use (see figs. 14A and 14B, para [0083]-[0085]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721