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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creasy et al. (US 2022/0294386) in view of Anderson et al. (US 9,941,441)
Regarding claim 1, Creasy et al. (hereafter “D1”) discloses a solar panel (PV module 110), comprising two backrails (rails 120) attached to the backside ([0050]), wherein all exterior edges of the panel are not in contact with a frame structure or clamps (figure 1A), and wherein the length of each backrail is substantially parallel to the length of the panel ([0045]). D1 does not specifically describe the composition of the PV panel having a bifacial laminate, comprising an array of encapsulated solar cells positioned between a sun-facing glass layer and a backside glass layer.
Anderson et al. (hereafter “D2”) is referenced as teaching that the type of PV panels having a bifacial laminate, comprising an array of encapsulated solar cells positioned between a sun-facing glass layer and a backside glass layer are well known in the art. D2 discloses it is known to mount adhesive bonded rails to the back side of panels having a glass front and back layer (col. 1, lines 29-50) and such PV modules comprise laminate and encapsulated solar cells (col. 1, lines 51-60; col. 7, lines 13-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize the PV panels of the bifacial laminate type having solar cells as taught by D2 in the device of D1 as already suggested by the frameless design of D1 having only backrails attached to mount the panels.
Regarding claim 2, D1 as modified discloses wherein a length of the backrails (120) is in a range of 75% to 110% of the length of the bifacial laminate (figure 1A).
Regarding claim 4, D1 does not specify the backrail material but does teach use of stainless steel for the clamp seating portion (810) ([0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize stainless steel material for the backrails of D1 as the material is already suggested in D1 for corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 5, D1 as modified discloses wherein the two backrails (120) each have a flat top surface and a flat bottom surface, the flat top surface and the flat bottom surface defining substantially parallel planes (figure 1B).
Regarding claims 7-8, D1 does not specifically disclose wherein the two backrails (120) are each attached to the backside glass layer by an adhesive compound in contact with the flat top surface, though it appears to be indicated in figure 1C. D2 teaches use of adhesive for attaching rails to (col. 1, lines 51-55) back of PV modules and teaches the known use of silicone-based adhesives (col. 47, lines 60-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize a silicone-based adhesive for attaching the rails of D1 as suggested in D2.
Regarding claim 9, D1 discloses wherein the flat bottom surface and the flat top surface (one of top attached surface) are connected by only one perpendicular wall (as shown in figure 7B walls are perpendicular of rail 710).
Regarding claim 11, D1 discloses wherein the two backrails are each C-beams (as in figure 7B beams 710 are C-shaped).
Regarding claim 13, D1 discloses wherein the flat top surface and the flat bottom surface are connected by two non-perpendicular walls, forming a tube with a trapezoidal cross-section (cross-section seen in figure 1B).
Regarding claim 14, D1 discloses wherein a distance between the non-perpendicular walls at the flat top surface (PV panel side) is greater than a distance between the non-perpendicular walls at the flat bottom surface (figure 1B).
Regarding claim 15, D1 discloses both perpendicular tube sidewalls forming rectangular cross-section and non-perpendicular sidewalls forming trapezoidal cross-section with wider portion at the PV panel. Since the claims do not define the top and bottom surfaces of the backrail in any relation to the panel or support structure an interpretation can be taken where the PV panel side surfaces are the bottom surface and the clamp side are the top surface thereby meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 16-17, D1 discloses wherein the two backrails (120) each have a flat top surface (at clamp side or right side of page in figure 1B) and two flat bottom surfaces (PV panel side or left side of page in figure 1B), the two flat bottom surfaces defining the same plane, the flat top surface defining a plane parallel with the plane defined by the flat bottom surfaces, wherein each flat bottom surface is connected to the flat top surface by a wall, and the flat bottom surfaces each extend in opposite directions from each other (figures 1B, 7B).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creasy et al. (US 2022/0294386) in view of Anderson et al. (US 9,941,441) and Lutian (US 2020/0274480).
Regarding claim 3, D1 in view of D2 does not disclose the solar cell placements within the PV panels. Lutian discloses solar panels (106) having cells (108) in a six row pattern (figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize a solar cell pattern such as the six rows pattern of Lutian for modified D1 with the backrails between the two outermost respective cell rows to minimize the backside light being blocked by the rails.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creasy et al. (US 2022/0294386) in view of Anderson et al. (US 9,941,441) and McPheeters et al. (US 2015/0357964).
D1 in view of D2 does not disclose where in the two backrails are right prisms or I-beams. McPheeters et al. teaches various solar panel backrails (mounting rail combinations disclosed forming right prism 1400a or forming I-beam 1400d) (figure 14; [0054-0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize backrail shapes in D1 of a right prism or an I-beam for customizing rail shape to accommodate differing loads, cost requirements, and/or ease of installation (see [0058] of McPheeters).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited form PTO-892. References not applied but cited are relevant as disclosing or suggesting at least one feature in the claims or disclosure of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631