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 .
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 1-15 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.
The claim language is confusing. It is requested to be changed. Below is a non-limiting list of indefinite issues.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites “solar modules” in line 6 and also recites “several solar modules” in line 2. It is unclear if “solar modules” recited in line 6 is the same as or different from “several solar modules” recited in line 2.
Claim 1 recites “at least substantially continuous” in line 3. It is unclear what is to be encompassed by the term “at least substantially continuous”.
Claim 1 recites “the solar modules” in line 7. It is unclear what “the solar modules” recited in line 7 being referred to, e.g. “several solar modules” recited in line 2 or “solar modules” recited in line 6.
Claims 2-15 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and recites the limitations “the vertical wall” in line 2 and “the lateral support surface” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “at least substantially continuous” in line 3. It is unclear what is to be encompassed by the term “at least substantially continuous”.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “can be” in line 4. The phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the connection of fastening modules" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and recites the limitation “the bearing surfaces” (emphasis added) in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fastening of a fastening module" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and recites the limitation “the bearing surfaces” (emphasis added) in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-15 are rejected on the same ground as claim 8.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8 and recites “two mounting holes” in line 2, while claim 8 recites “several mounting holes” in line 3. It is unclear if “two mounting holes” recited in claim 9 are the same as or different from “several mounting holes” recited in claim 8.
Claim 10 depends on claim 8 and recites the limitation “the two mounting holes” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the connection of a fastening module” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 8 and recites “a mounting hole” in line 3 and “the two mounting holes” in line 4, while claim 8 also recites “several mounting holes” in line 3. It is unclear if “a mounting hole” and “the two mounting holes” recited in claim 10 are the same as or different from “several mounting holes” recited in claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “a fastening means” in line 5 and “a fastening module” in line 6. It is unclear if “a fastening means” recited in line 5 is the same as or different from “a fastening module” recited in line 6.
Claim 11 depends on claim 8 and recites “a mounting hole” in line 3, while claim 8 recites “several mounting holes” in line 3. It is unclear if “a mounting hole” recited in line 11 is the same as or different from “several mounting holes” recited in claim 8.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1 and recites “at least one solar module” in line 3, while claim 1 recites “several solar modules” in line 2 and “solar modules” in line 6. As such, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “at least one solar module”, and the claim also recites “several solar modules” and “solar modules” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 12 depends on claim 8 and recites “a mounting hole” in lines 4-5, while claim 8 recites “several mounting holes” in line 3. It is unclear if “a mounting hole” recited in claim 12 is the same as or different from “several mounting holes” recited in claim 8.
Claims 13-15 are rejected on the same ground as claim 12.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12 and recites “the mounting holes” in line 3, while claim 12 recites “a mounting hole” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the mounting holes” recited in claim 13 is the same as or different from “a mounting hole” recited in claim 12 or “several mounting holes” recited in claim 8
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "can be" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 also recites the phrase "preferably" in line 4. The phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Owen et al. (US 2017/0310275).
Regarding claim 1, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device with a mounting rail (110, figs. 1-12, also see annotated fig. 8 below) for fastening solar modules (105A-C, see figs. 1, 8-9), wherein the mounting rail (110, see annotated fig. 8 below) comprises:
a substantially continuous bearing surface (see the upper surface of a flange 115 shown in fig. 4, also see figs. 5-9) for fastening solar modules (105, see figs. 4-9), and
at least one mounting-securing element (see retention teeth 130) configured for sliding the solar module (105) onto the bearing surface (or upper surface of 115) in a mounting direction and securing the solar modules (105) in mounting position against a displacement counter to the mounting direction (see figs. 1-9, [0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
665
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the at least one mounting-securing element (130) is arranged on the bearing surface (115) and rises from the bearing surface (115, see figs. 4-9).
Regarding claim 3, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the at least one mounting- securing element (130) is a tab bent out from the bearing surface (115, see figs. 4-9).
Regarding claim 4, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the mounting rail (110) has a vertical wall (or lateral side 116, figs. 4 and 7, also see figs. 5-6 and 8-9) to forms a lateral support surface for the solar modules (105, see figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 5, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the vertical wall (116) of the mounting rail is inclined and forms the lateral support surface only in an upper region that faces away from the bearing surface (see the inclination of 116 at the upper region close to surface 118, see fig. 7, also see figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 6, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the mounting rail (110) has a second at least substantially continuous bearing surface (see the upper surface of other flange 115) onto which further solar modules (105) is slid for fastening (see figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 7, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the mounting rail (110) has a mounting surface (118) which is elevated relative to the bearing surfaces (or upper surface of flanges 115), which extends between the bearing surfaces (or upper surfaces of flanges 115) and which is configured to connect with fastening modules (or mounting clips 120, see figs. 3-9) and to fastening the solar modules (105, see figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 8, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the mounting rail (110) has several mounting holes (pre-drilled holes bolts and corresponding hole, [0006] and figs. 3-9) in a mounting surface (118, figs. 4 and 7, also see figs. 5-6 and 8-9) that is elevated relative to the bearing surfaces (or upper surface of flange 115, see fig. 7, also see figs. 4-6 and 8-9).
Regarding claim 9, Owen et al. teaches a solar module fastening device as in claim 8 above, wherein the mounting holes (see pre-drilled hole for bolt 103 and the corresponding hole 127) are pre-mounting and positioning holes and having respectively different diameters (see figs. 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 12, Owen et al. disclose a solar module fastening device as in claim 8 above, and teaches a fastening module (120, figs. 3-9) for fastening at least one solar module (105) to the mounting rail (110) in a clamping manner (see figs. 8-9), wherein the fastening module (120) being configured to be fastened at a fastening hole (or pre-drilled hole for bolt 103).
Regarding claim 13, Owen et al. discloses all the structural limitation of the claimed solar module fastening device as in claim 12 above. The reference is deemed to be anticipatory for the instant claim since the recitation “the fastening module is configured to be pre- mounted at the mounting holes in a self-securing manner” is directed to an intended use of the fastening module. Modified Kern disclosed all the structural limitations as described above. Said recitation does not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The fastening module (120) of Owen et al. is fully capable of being used as pre-mounting at the mounting holes in a self-securing manner, e.g. before tightening the bolt (103).
Regarding claim 14, Owen et al. discloses a device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the fastening module (120) comprising a clamping element (105 and 108, fig. 7) and a spring element (see retaining washer 104 made of rubber, [0022], fig. 7) being arranged between the mounting surface (118) and the clamp element (105 and 106, see fig. 7).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen et al. (US 2017/0210275) as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Seery et al. (US 2012/0061337, Cite No. 1 of U.S. Patent Application Publication in IDS 6/27/2025).
Regarding claim 10, Owen et al. teaches a solar module fastening device as in claim 8 above. Owen et al. teaches including a mounting hole (or pre-drilled hole for bolt 103, see figs. 4-9) and a screw element (or bolt 103) protrude through the mounting hole (see figs. 4-9), and a positioning hole (127, fig. 4) for tab (125) of the fastening module (120) for anti-rotation (see figs. 4-7).
Owen et al. does not teach using two positioning holes such that the mounting hole is arranged between two positioning holes.
Seery et al. teaches using two tabs (932a and 932b, figs. 13 and 13A) extending to the corresponding positioning holes (see fig. 13) for ease of assembly and preventing rotation ([0103]) such that the mounting hole (or hole for bolt – or fastening element 933) is between the two positioning holes (see fig. 13, also see 3 holes shown in figs. 12, 14-15).
It would have been obvious one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Owen et al. by using two positioning holes for receiving to tabs from the fastening module such that the mounting hole is between the positioning holes for ease of assembly and preventing rotation as taught by Seery et al. Such modification would involve nothing more than a mere duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen et al. (US 2017/0210275) as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Loois et al. (US 2012/0031469).
Regarding claim 11, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device as in claim 8 above. Owen et al. teaches including a mounting hole (or pre-drilled hole for bolt 103, see figs. 4-9) on the mounting surface (118, see figs. 4-9) for a fastening module (or mounting clip 120) to be attached to the mounting surface (118, see figs. 4-9), and the mounting wall (116) is between the mounting surface (118) and the bearing surface (or upper surface of flanges 115, see fig. 7)
Owen et al. does not teach the mounting hole extending as far as and into the vertical wall.
Loois et al. using an extending hole (or elongated hole 43) in a lateral direction to allow adjustment and precise position (see fig. 4A, [0054]). It is noted that extending hole is right within the extension range of as far as and into the vertical wall as “into the vertical wall” is construed as the upper limit of the extension range.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Owen et al. by using an extending hole (or elongated hole) taught by Loois et al. for the mounting hole (or pre-drilled hole for bolt 103) on the mounting surface (118) of Owen et al.; because Loois et al. teaches extending hole (or elongated hole) allow adjustment and precise position (of the insertion of the bolt).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen et al. (US 2017/0210275) as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Uppu et al. (US 2020/0116191).
Regarding claim 15, Owen et al. discloses a solar module fastening device as in claim 12 above.
Owen et al. does not disclose the spring element (or retaining washer 104) comprises positioning pins which are inserted into holes.
Uppu et al. discloses a spring element (or retaining washer) comprising positioning pins (38) inserted and snap into holes (or channels, see washer 12 in figs. 1-4, 8-15, 28-32).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastening device of Owen by using the spring element (or retaining washer) comprising positioning pins which are inserted into holes as taught by Uppu et al., because Uppu et al. teaches such spring element (or washer) would prevent vertical shear at the joint at the rail, lock the bolt from falling off the rail slot, always aligns the bolt in the correct orientation and cannot back rotate, and also help for making height adjustment (see [0002] of Uppu et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726