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 1-17 are pending and examined below.
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 1-17 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, applicant recites the limitations that “the first side support rod being connected to the first assembly rope and the first stabilizing rope; the second side support rod being connected to the second assembly rope and the second stabilizing rope”. It is unclear whether the side support rods are the attachment points for the assembly ropes and stabilizing ropes or the side support rods are attached to the assembly ropes and stabilizing ropes through the assembly and stabilizing support rods. Claims 2-8 and 10-17 are rejected as being dependent on either claims 1 or 9.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the terms first support rod and second support rod are confusing as being too similar to first side support rod and second side support rod. Applicant may refer to first or second internal support rod or center support rod, both identifiers are supported by figure 3.
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 1-3, 5, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN 109869926) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 219834036).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Gao discloses a flexible photovoltaic system (claim 9) (see para [0023]-[0024] comprising:
a flexible photovoltaic bracket (claim 1 and 9) (see para [0023]-[0024]), comprising:
a plurality of fixing structures (1 and 5);
a rope structure connected between two fixing structures which are disposed at intervals (shown in fig. 1);
the rope structure comprising a first assembly rope (2), a second assembly rope (2) (shown in fig. 1), a stabilizing rope (3) (see para [0023]-[0024]).
Gao does not disclose the rope structure comprises a first stabilizing rope and a second stabilizing rope.
Zhang is analogous art to Gao as Zhang discloses a flexible photovoltaic support bracket (see fig. 1 and abstract). Zhang discloses a plurality of fixing structures (5 and 8) and a rope structure with a first and second assembly rope (1, i.e., load bearing) (shown in figs. 1 and 4, para [n0031]). Zhang discloses a first stabilizing rope and a second stabilizing rope (2) connected to the support structure through a stabilizing rope support rod (11, lower tie rod) (see fig. 4, para [n0029] and [n0038].
Gao and Zhang disclose the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope being located above the first stabilizing rope and the second stabilizing rope (see Gao fig. 1 and Zhang fig. 4, para [n0038]).
The court has held mere duplication of parts (i.e., two stabilizing ropes) would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., two stabilizing ropes) according to known methods (i.e., connected to the stabilizing rope support rods, on either side of center, as disclosed by Zhang) wherein the result is predictable.
Gao as modified by Zhang above discloses a support frame (tripod 4) comprising an assembly rope support rod, a first side support rod, a second side support rod and a stabilizing rope support rod (see Gao figure 1 mark-up below;
PNG
media_image1.png
460
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
two ends of the assembly rope support rod being connected to the first assembly rope (2) and the second assembly rope (2) (shown in fig. 1); the first side support rod being connected to the first assembly rope and the first stabilizing rope (the first side support rod is connected to the first assembly rope and first stabilizing rope, i.e., connected through the assembly rope support rod and the stabilizing rope support rod, respectively, see fig. 1);
the second side support rod being connected to the second assembly rope and the second stabilizing rope; two ends of the stabilizing rope support rod being connected to the first stabilizing rope and the second stabilizing rope (the second side support rod is connected to the second assembly rope and second stabilizing rope through the assembly rope support rod and the stabilizing rope support rod, respectively, see fig. 1, and Gao in view of Zhang discussed above);
a length of the assembly rope support rod being shorter than a length of the stabilizing rope support rod (shown in fig. 1, as the assembly rope support rod is straight and the stabilizing rope support rod is not, the stabilizing rope support rod is shown to be longer).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP § 2125.
Further, modified Gao discloses the first side support rod and/or the second side support rod extend obliquely to an outside along a top-to-bottom direction (see Gao fig 1, and Gao para [0022]-[0024]).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, modified Gao discloses a flexible photovoltaic bracket according to claims 1 and 9, wherein the support frame is symmetrical with respect to a center vertical line of the assembly rope support rod (shown in Gao fig. 1).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP § 2125.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, modified Gao discloses a flexible photovoltaic bracket according to claims 1 and 9, wherein an angle between the first side support rod and the stabilizing rope support rod is within 30 degrees to 90 degrees; and/or an angle between the second side support rod and the stabilizing rope support rod is within 30 degrees to 90 degrees (shown in Gao fig. 1, see para [n0023]-[n0024]).
PNG
media_image2.png
360
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 14, modified Gao discloses a flexible photovoltaic bracket according to claims 1 and 9, wherein the assembly rope support rod, the first side support rod, the second side support rod and the stabilizing rope support rod are located on a same plane (shown in Gao figs. 1 and 2, see Gao para [0023]-[0024]).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Ru et al. (CN 116722809).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, modified Gao discloses a flexible photovoltaic bracket according to claims 1 and 9.
Further, Zhang discloses wherein the support frame (9 and 11) further comprises a first support rod (3) and a second support rod (3); two ends of the first support rod (3) are connected to the assembly rope support rod (9) and the stabilizing rope support rod (11), respectively; two ends of the second support rod (3) are connected to the assembly rope support rod (9) and the stabilizing rope support rod (11), respectively.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person to combine prior art elements (additional support rods) according to known methods (as disclosed by Zhang), wherein the result is predictable. See MPEP § 2143.
Modified Gao does not disclose the first support rod, the second support rod and the stabilizing rope support rod form a triangle, or, the first support rod, the second support rod and the assembly rope support rod form a triangle.
Ru is analogous art to Gao as Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic support bracket comprising a cable structure (see abstract). Ru discloses a plurality of fixing structures (200) (see fig. 1, para [n0059]) and support frames (300) (see para [n0057]). Ru discloses a first support and a second support come together without a gap along the assembly rope support rod (shown in fig. 3). Zhang modified by Ru to form the first support and second support together at the tope without a gap, Zhang discloses the first support rod, the second support rod and the stabilizing rope support rod form a triangle.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person to combine prior art elements (bring the first support rod and second support rod together at the assembly rope support rod) according to known methods (as disclosed by Ru), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., merely a change of shape, see MPEP § 2144.04). See also MPEP § 2143.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, as evidenced by Alibaba (www.alibaba.com/products, downloaded 1/07/2026)
Regarding claims 6 and 15, modified Gao discloses a flexible photovoltaic bracket according to claims 5 and 14, but does not disclose wherein the assembly rope support rod and the stabilizing rope support rod are U-shaped steel;
an opening of the assembly rope support rod and an opening of the stabilizing rope support rod are opposite to each other;
two ends of the first side support rod and two ends of the second side support rod are respectively inserted into an opening of the U-shaped steel and connected through fasteners.
Channel, i.e., U-shaped or C-shaped, steel is well known in the art as use in rails, rods, and supports for photovoltaic supports as evidenced by Alibaba. See Alibaba pages 1-2.
The Courts have 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, 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).
The connection method is a well-known attachment in the mechanical arts as evidenced by Alibaba. See Alibaba pages 1-2.
The court has held "in a simple mechanical invention a broad spectrum of prior art must be explored and it is reasonable to permit inquiry into other areas where one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware that similar problems exist." See Stevenson v. Int'l Trade Comm., 612 F.2d 546, 550, 204 USPQ 276, 280 (CCPA 1979). Alibaba is analogous art as one would look to experts in structural support.
Further, the court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., the support structure of Gao with known expert solutions) according to known methods (as disclosed by Alibaba), wherein the results are predictable, (i.e., a support structure for a flexible bracket). See MPEP § 2143.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Ru et al. (CN 116722809).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, modified Gao discloses a flexible photovoltaic bracket according to claims 1 and 9. Modified Gao discloses wherein the assembly rope support rod and the stabilizing rope support rod are connected to the assembly ropes and stabilizing ropes respectively (see Gao fig. 1, para [0023]-[0024]).
Gao does not disclose wherein the support frame further comprises a plurality of connecting components, and
the two ends of the assembly rope support rod are respectively provided with the connecting components, wherein the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope pass through the connecting components and are connected to the assembly rope support rod; and/or,
the two ends of the stabilizing rope support rod are respectively provided with the connecting components, the first stabilizing rope and the second stabilizing rope pass through the connecting components and are connected to the stabilizing rope support rod.
Ru is analogous art to Gao as Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic support bracket comprising a cable structure (see abstract). Ru discloses a plurality of fixing structures (200) (see fig. 1, para [n0059]) and support frames (300) (see para [n0057]) comprising an assembly rope support rod (no identifier, see mark-up of Ru fig. 3 below) (see para [n0057] and [n0059]), wherein the support frames (300) further comprises a plurality of connecting components (no identifiers, see mark-up of Ru figs. 2 and 3 below), and
the two ends of the assembly rope support rod (no identifier, see mark-up) are respectively provided with the connecting components (no identifier, see mark-up), wherein the first assembly rope (210) and the second assembly rope (210) pass through the connecting components (no identifier, see mark-up) and are connected to the assembly rope support rod (no identifier, see mark-up) (see Ru figs. 2 and 3 para [n0059]).
PNG
media_image3.png
453
973
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 114865995).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, modified Gao discloses a flexible photovoltaic bracket according to claims 1 and 9, wherein a plurality of the support frames (4) are provided and disposed at intervals along a length direction of the rope structure (3 and 2).
Modified Gao does not disclose the plurality of support frames comprise a first support frame located in a middle of the rope structure and a plurality of second support frames provided on two sides of the first support frame along the length direction;
an area of the first support frame is larger than an area of the second support frame.
Xu is analogous art to modified Gao as Xu discloses a flexible cable bracket (i.e., cable span photovoltaic support) (see abstract). Xu discloses assembly cables (13), stabilizing cables (12) and a support frame (14, 2 places, 16 and 17, i.e., four-cable spatial cable truss) (see para [n0040]-[n0053]). Xu discloses the plurality of support frames comprise a first support frame located in a middle of the rope structure and a plurality of second support frames provided on two sides of the first support frame along the length direction (shown in fig. 5, see para [n0040]-[n0053])).
The court has held mere duplication of parts (i.e., plurality of support frames) would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Xu further discloses wherein an area of the first support frame is larger than an area of the second support frame (shown in fig. 5, para [n0053]-[n0062]). The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., the support frames of Xu) according to known methods (i.e., decreasing the size of the support frame as it approaches the beam structure), wherein the result is predictable (strengthened cables/ropes).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 208094485).
Regarding claim 10, modified Gao discloses a flexible photovoltaic system according to claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the flexible photovoltaic bracket further comprises a plurality of pressing blocks which are arranged on an edge of the photovoltaic modules; the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope pass through the pressing blocks; the photovoltaic modules are connected to the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope through the pressing blocks.
Wang is analogous art to modified Gao as Wang discloses a photovoltaic module mounted to a flexible bracket comprising a cable/rope system (see abstract). Wang discloses a flexible photovoltaic bracket further comprises a plurality of pressing blocks (2 and 4) which are arranged on an edge of the photovoltaic modules (1) (shown in figs. 1-3), see [0017]-[0020]);
the first assembly rope (3) and the second assembly rope (3) pass through the pressing blocks (2); the photovoltaic modules (1) are connected to the first assembly rope (3) and the second assembly rope (3) through the pressing blocks (see para [0017]-[0020]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., the flexible photovoltaic system of Gao and the pressing block mounting components of Wang) according to known methods (as disclosed by Wang), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., safe and secure mounted photovoltaic modules to a cable/rope structure of a flexible bracket).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Qiu et al. (CN 11478524) (connecting components (402) for support structure, shown in fig. 4).
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