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 Group I, claims 1-8 and 12-13, in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
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 4 and 8 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 4 recites the limitation "a plurality of second connecting members" in lines 1-2 and 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of a first connecting member until claim 13.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inner wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 7 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. In claim 1, the applicant recites the fourth mounting arm connects the second and third connecting arms. In claim 7, dependent on claim 1, applicant recites the fourth mounting wall comprises a notch and exposes the inner wall, and references figure 6, described in para [0063]). In the embodiment with the notch, the fourth mounting arm does not connect the second and third mounting arm. 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. The examiner notes that simply stating the fourth mounting arm extends between the second and third mounting arms would resolve the issue.
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, 7-8, 12-13 and 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (CN 20 806 3118) in view of Chen et al. (CN 11 242 8595).
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses a frame structure of a photovoltaic module (see figs. 1-10), configured to:
mount a photovoltaic structure (see para [0014]),
the frame structure comprises:
a supporting arm extending along a first direction;
a first mounting arm, a second mounting arm, and a third mounting arm, which are mounted on a same side of the supporting arm; and
a fourth mounting arm connecting the second mounting arm and the third mounting arm;
the first mounting arm, the second mounting arm, and the third mounting arm all extend along a second direction, and are arranged sequentially in the first direction;
the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction,
the first direction and the second direction are respectively perpendicular to an extension direction of the frame structure (extension direction shown in fig. 9); and
the supporting arm comprises a first supporting structure, and a second supporting structure fixedly connected to the first supporting structure;
the first mounting arm, the second mounting arm, and the first supporting structure form a mounting groove, and the mounting groove is configured to mount the photovoltaic structure (shown in fig. 8, see para [0038], [0078]) (see also fig. 8 below, marked to show above features, the extension direction is shown in fig. 9);
PNG
media_image1.png
556
1258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second mounting arm, the third mounting arm, the fourth mounting arm, and the second supporting structure form a connecting groove (shown above, see para [0038]);
Dai does not disclose wherein the connecting groove is configured to mount a corner connector.
Chen is analogous art to Dai as Chen discloses a profile that is able to be used for photovoltaic modules (see para [0002]-[0003], [0006] and n[0073]). Chen discloses wherein the frame (profile) has a mounting groove and a connecting groove (shown in fig. 1, corresponds to the fig. of Dai). Chen discloses the connecting groove is configured to mount a corner connector (2) (shown in figs. 1 and 2). Chen discloses the inserted corner results in a quick connect method (see para [n0013]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the frame of Dai wherein the connecting groove is configured to mount a corner connector as disclosed by Chen because it allows for a quick-connect frame.
Regarding claim 7, modified Dai discloses a frame structure of the photovoltaic module of claim 1, but does not disclose in the specific prior art embodiment discussed wherein the fourth mounting arm is provided with a notch to expose the inner wall of the connecting groove.
In an alternate embodiment, Dai discloses wherein the fourth mounting arm is provided with a notch to expose the inner wall of the connecting groove (shown in figs. 1-3, see para [0045]-[0064]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., embodiments disclosed by Dai) according to known methods (as disclosed by Dai), wherein the result is predictable, (i.e., a photovoltaic frame).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dai discloses a frame structure of the photovoltaic module of claim 1, and further, in an alternate embodiment cited in claim 7, (shown in fig. 3a), Dai discloses wherein at least one of the inner wall and/or an outer wall of the connecting groove are is provided with chamfered structures (i.e., rounded corners, see applicant’s identifier 8, fig. 1 and applicant’s specification para [0064]) (rounded corner shown in Dai fig. 3A, see para [0058]-[0064]). See obviousness discussion of claim 7 re combining embodiments of Dai.
Regarding claim 12, modified Dai discloses a frame structure of the photovoltaic module of claim 1, wherein the frame structure is in a long strip shape (shown in Dai fig. 9, see para [0074]).
Dai does not disclose wherein the frame is made of a composite material, and the composite material is a reinforced fiber resin-based composite material made from physically mixing reinforced fibers and photocurable resins.
Chen is analogous art to Dai as Chen discloses a profile that is able to be used for photovoltaic modules (see para [0002]-[0003], [0006] and n[0073]). Chen discloses wherein the frame (profile) has a mounting groove and a connecting groove (shown in fig. 1, corresponds to the fig. of Dai). Chen discloses the frame is made of a composite material (i.e., composite pultruded profile, see para [0006], [n0073]-[n0074], [n0153]-[n0155], [n0157]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the frame material of Dai to be a fiber reinforced composite as the court has held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, as the selection is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 13, modified Dai discloses a frame structure of the photovoltaic module of claim 12, wherein an inner wall of the mounting groove or an inner wall of the connecting groove are provided with reinforcing ribs; (specifically Dai discloses the reinforcing ribs in the connecting groove, shown is labeled figure of claim 1 associated with claim above, see para [0038], [0078]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dai discloses a frame structure of the photovoltaic module of claim 13, further Dai discloses a first reinforcing rib as discussed in claim 13 above and labeled in the figure of claim 1, but does not disclose in the cited embodiment wherein at least one of the first supporting structure or the first mounting arm area is provided with a second reinforcing rib.
Dai discloses in an alternate embodiment a reinforcing rib on the mounting arm (shown in fig. 2, see para [0051]-[0055]; see also marked-up figure below).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., embodiments disclosed by Dai) according to known methods (as disclosed by Dai), wherein the result is predictable, (i.e., a photovoltaic frame).
PNG
media_image2.png
542
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Dai discloses a frame structure of the photovoltaic module of claim 5, wherein the first mounting arm is provided with a glue overflow groove (3);
in a case where the first mounting arm is provided with the second reinforcing rib, concave parts on both sides of the second reinforcing rib form the glue overflow groove (shown in fig. 2, see marked up figure above and para [0051]-[0055], marked convex areas in figure above correspond to applicant’s convex areas shown in fig. 3, see applicant’s specification para [0061]).
The limitation that the convex area is a glue overflow area is intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to perform the intended use. The examiner notes Dai discloses area (3) for glue overflow. It is the examiner’s position that the second convex area is able to perform the intended use in conjunction with identified glue overflow area (3).
The examiner has elected not to examine optional limitations.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. and Chen et al. as applied to claims 1, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Jang (US 2011/0259404).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Dai discloses a structure of the photovoltaic module of claim 13, but does not disclose wherein two first reinforcing ribs are provided in the connecting groove, and the two first reinforcing ribs are provided on the fourth mounting arm and the second supporting structure, respectively;
a first connecting beam is provided in the connecting groove, the first connecting beam connects the two first reinforcing ribs, and the first connecting beam divides the connecting groove into two chambers that are not in communication with each other (see applicant’s fig. 4, applicant’s specification para [0056]).
Jang is analogous art to Dai and Chen as Jang discloses a photovoltaic frame (10) comprising a mounting groove and connecting grooves (shown in fig. 4a, see abstract, para [0034], [0040]). Jang discloses wherein two first reinforcing ribs are provided in the connecting groove, and the two first reinforcing ribs are provided on the fourth mounting arm and the second supporting structure, respectively;
a first connecting beam is provided in the connecting groove, the first connecting beam connects the two first reinforcing ribs, and the first connecting beam divides the connecting groove into two chambers that are not in communication with each other (shown in figs. 2, 4a and b, see para [0040]-[0043]). See marked up fig. 4a below.
PNG
media_image3.png
487
1405
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. and Chen et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (US 2022/0103117).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dai discloses a frame structure of the photovoltaic module of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a plurality of second connecting beams are provided in the connecting groove, the plurality of second connecting beams are arranged in an intersecting manner, and each of the second connecting beams connects diagonal positions of the connecting groove.
Gong is analogous art to Dai as Gong discloses a frame for a photovoltaic module (see Gong abstract). Gong discloses a frame with a mounting groove (holding slot 10) and a connecting groove (cavity 20) (see para [0075]-[0076]). Gong discloses wherein a plurality of connecting beams provided in the connecting groove (cavity 20), the plurality of connecting beams (20B1 and 20B2) are arranged in an intersecting manner (in an “X”, and each of the second connecting beams connects diagonal positions of the connecting groove (shown in fig. 9, see para [0112]). Gong discloses that by providing X-shaped reinforcing ribs, a strength of the photovoltaic frame may be further strengthened, and the hollow closed cavity may be prevented from being deformed under an action of an external force.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dai by providing intersecting reinforcing ribs to strengthen the connecting groove and prevent said groove from collapsing.
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