DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 1, 26 and 27 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
The Applicant argues that Schuit describes micro rails in Figure 44. However, the Drawings are not the only thing that define the invention. As per the previous rejection, the Examiner has cited parts of Schuit that disclose the invention almost verbatim. Furthermore, in claim 1 it recites on Lines 9-10 “an edge splice configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of a second solar module”. Then the amendment recites “wherein the edge splice attaches to the second edge of the first solar module and the first edge of the second solar module”. These limitations substantially the same, just worded in a different way. Since the Examiner had shown that Schuit discloses the first limitation, it would be implied that he also meets the second limitation. Furthermore, the Examiner has given this a 112 indefinite rejection as it just seems to be repeating itself.
The final argument is that Alibadi fails to cure the deficiency of Schuit. However, the Examiner has shown that Schuit does not have any deficiencies toward the limitations in question.
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 1-9 and 27-34 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.
In claim 1, Lines 9-10 recite “an edge splice configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of a second solar module”. Lines 11-12 continue to recite “wherein the edge splice attaches to the second edge of the first solar module and the first edge of the second solar module”. These limitations substantially the same: using the edge splice to join the second edge of the first solar module to the first edge of the second solar module; just worded in a different way: using “configured to” instead of “attaches”. The repeated recitation leads to indefiniteness.
In claim 26, Lines 9-10 recite “an edge splice configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of a second solar module”. Lines 12-13 continue to recite “wherein the edge splice attaches to the second edge of the first solar module and the first edge of the second solar module”. These limitations substantially the same: using the edge splice to join the second edge of the first solar module to the first edge of the second solar module; just worded in a different way: using “configured to” instead of “attaches”. The repeated recitation leads to indefiniteness.
In claim 27, Lines 9-10 recite “an edge splice configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of a second solar module”. Lines 11-12 continue to recite “wherein the edge splice attaches to the second edge of the first solar module and the first edge of the second solar module”. These limitations substantially the same: using the edge splice to join the second edge of the first solar module to the first edge of the second solar module; just worded in a different way: using “configured to” instead of “attaches”. The repeated recitation leads to indefiniteness.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 12,289,079 to Schuit et al [with an effective filing date of 03 August 2015].
Regarding claim 1, Schuit teaches a mounting system for solar modules (Column 29, Line 36), the system comprising: a pair of mounting rails attached to a roof surface and used to support a first solar module having a first edge and a second edge (Column 29, Lines 38-40) substantially parallel to [see Figure 6] and opposite the first edge (Column 29, Line 40), wherein the pair of mounting rails extends in parallel along an interior portion of the first solar module between the first edge and the second edge (Column 29, Lines 40-43), and wherein Figure 6 shows the pair of mounting rails extend substantially orthogonally past a third edge and a fourth edge of the first solar module, the third edge substantially parallel to and opposite the fourth edge; and an edge splice configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of a second solar module supported by a single additional mounting rail (Column 29, Lines 44-47), wherein the edge splice attaches to the second edge of the first solar module and the first edge of the second solar module [by the “configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of the second solar module” of the previous limitation], wherein Figure 44 shows the edge splice is placed between the third edge of the first solar module and the fourth edge of the first solar module, the edge splice further laterally displaced from the pair of mounting rails and from the single additional mounting rail (Column 29, Lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 2, Schuit teaches a second additional mounting rail attached to the roof surface, laterally displaced from the single [at least one] additional mounting rail, and parallel to the single [at least one] additional mounting rail, wherein the second additional mounting rail is positioned along an interior portion of a third solar module; and a second edge splice laterally displaced from the single [at least one] additional mounting rail and that connects a first edge of the third solar module to a second edge of the second solar module (Column 29, Lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 3, Schuit teaches the first edge of the first solar module and the first edge of the second solar module are parallel to the pair of mounting rails (Column 29, Lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 5, Schuit teaches in Figure 6, a first distance between the pair of mounting rails corresponds to a fraction of a length of the third edge of the first solar module, the third edge of the first solar module orthogonal to the first edge of the first solar module.
Regarding claim 6, Schuit teaches in Figure 6, a length of the first edge of the first solar module and a length of the first edge of the second solar module. Schuit also teaches mixing the orientation of the solar modules (Column 5, Lines 1-4) thus the lengths would be different.
Regarding claim 7, Schuit teaches a third solar module that has a first edge and a second edge, wherein the first edge of the third solar module is substantially aligned with the first edge of the first solar module; a fourth solar module with a first edge and a second edge, wherein the second edge of the fourth solar module is substantially aligned with the second edge of the second solar module; anda second edge splice that connects the second edge of the first solar module and the second edge of the third solar module to the first edge of the second solar module and the first edge of the fourth solar module (Column 30, Lines 17-28).
Regarding claim 8, Schuit teaches a third solar module with a first edge that is substantially aligned with the first edge of the first solar module (Column 30, Lines 17-20); and a second edge splice that connects the first edge of the second solar module to a second edge of the third solar module (Column 30, Lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 9, Schuit teaches the single [at least one] additional mounting rail is configured to support the second solar module along an interior portion of the second solar module between the first edge and a second edge of the second solar module (Column 30, Lines 29-33).
Regarding claim 29, Schuit teaches the single additional mounting rail configured to attach to the roof surface in parallel to and laterally displaced from the pair of mounting rails (Column 31, Lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 30, Schuit teaches in Figure 44, the second solar module has a first edge, a second edge opposite the first edge of the second solar module, and a third edge orthogonal to the first edge of the second solar module and the second edge of the second solar module, wherein the single additional mounting rail is further configured to support the second solar module such that third edge of the second solar module is aligned to the third edge of the first solar module.
Regarding claim 31, Schuit teaches in Figure 44, the second solar module has a first edge, a second edge opposite the first edge of the second solar module, and a third edge orthogonal to the first edge of the second solar module and the second edge of the second solar module, wherein the single additional mounting rail is further configured to support the second solar module such that third edge of the second solar module is offset [mixing the orientation of the solar modules (Column 5, Lines 1-4)] to the third edge of the first solar module.
Regarding claim 32, Schuit teaches the single additional mounting rail is further configured to support the second solar module in a different orientation than the first solar module [mixing the orientation of the solar modules (Column 5, Lines 1-4)].
Regarding claim 33, Schuit teaches in Figure 44, the first edge of the first solar module has a first length that is parallel with the pair of mounting rails, and wherein the second solar module has a first edge, a second edge opposite the first edge of the second solar module, and a third edge orthogonal to the first edge of the second solar module and to the second edge of the second solar module and parallel with the pair of mounting rails, the third edge of the second solar module having a different length [mixing the orientation of the solar modules (Column 5, Lines 1-4)] than the first edge of the first solar module.
Regarding claim 34, Schuit teaches the first solar module is part of a first row, and wherein the second solar module is part of a second row (Column 30, Lines 37-44).
Regarding claim 27, Schuit teaches mounting system for solar modules, the system comprising: a pair of mounting rails attached to a roof surface and used to support a first solar module having a first edge and a second edge (Column 29, Lines 36-40) substantially parallel to [see Figure 6] and opposite the first edge (Column 29, Line 40), wherein the pair of mounting rails extends in parallel along an interior portion of the first solar module between the first edge and the second edge (Column 29, Lines 40-43); a first single [at least one] additional mounting rail (Column 29, Lines 46-47) configured to attach to the roof surface in parallel to and laterally displaced from the pair of mounting rails (Column 29, Lines 51-53), wherein the single additional mounting rail is further configured to support a second solar module along an interior portion of the second solar module (Column 30, Lines 29-33); an edge splice configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of the second solar module supported by the first single additional mounting rail, wherein the edge splice attaches to the second edge of the first solar module and the first edge of the second solar module [by the “configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of the second solar module” of the previous limitation], wherein the edge splice is laterally displaced from the pair of mounting rails and from the single additional mounting rail (Column 29, Lines 44-49); a second single additional mounting rail attached to the roof surface, laterally displaced from and parallel to the first single additional mounting rail, wherein the second single additional mounting rail is positioned along an interior portion of a third solar module (Column 29, Lines 51-56); and a second edge splice laterally displaced from the first single additional mounting rail and that connects a first edge of the third solar module to a second edge of the second solar module (Column 29, Lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 28, Schuit teaches the first solar module is part of a first row, and wherein the second solar module is part of a second row (Column 30, Lines 37-44).
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.
Claims 4 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 12,289,079 to Schuit et al in view of US Patent # 10,037,133 to Aliabadi et al.
Regarding claim 4, Schuit teaches in Figure 6, a first mounting rail of the pair of mounting rails is positioned within a first half portion of the first solar module, wherein a second mounting rail of the pair of mounting rails is positioned within a second half portion of the first solar module. Schuit does not teach the single additional mounting rail is positioned within a half portion of the second solar module that is farthest from the first solar module. However, Aliabadi teaches in Figure 1, a single additional mounting rail (14) is positioned within a half portion of a second solar module that is farthest from the first solar module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schuit with Aliabadi and have a reasonable expectation of success because Aliabadi teaches the single additional mounting rail is placed within a half portion of the second solar module that is farthest from the first solar module in order to provide the necessary balance for mounting the solar module.
Regarding claim 26, Schuit teaches a mounting system for solar modules (Column 29, Line 36), the system comprising: a pair of mounting rails attached to a roof surface and used to support a first solar module having a first edge and a second edge (Column 29, Lines 38-40) substantially parallel to [see Figure 6] and opposite the first edge (Column 29, Line 40), wherein the pair of mounting rails extends in parallel along an interior portion of the first solar module between the first edge and the second edge (Column 29, Lines 40-43), and wherein Figure 6 shows the pair of mounting rails extend substantially orthogonally past a third edge and a fourth edge of the first solar module, the third edge substantially parallel to and opposite the fourth edge; and Figure 6 shows an edge splice configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of a second solar module supported by a single additional mounting rail (Column 29, Lines 44-47), wherein the edge splice attaches to the second edge of the first solar module and the first edge of the second solar module [by the “configured to connect the second edge of the first solar module to a first edge of the second solar module” of the previous limitation], wherein Figure 44 shows the edge splice is placed between the third edge of the first solar module and the fourth edge of the first solar module, the edge splice further laterally displaced from the pair of mounting rails and from the single additional mounting rail (Column 29, Lines 47-49). Schuit does not teach the single additional mounting rail is positioned within a half portion of the second solar module that is farthest from the first solar module. However, Aliabadi teaches in Figure 1, a single additional mounting rail (14) extending parallel to a pair of mounting rails and attached within a half portion of a second solar module that is farthest from the first solar module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Schuit with Aliabadi and have a reasonable expectation of success because Aliabadi teaches the single additional mounting rail is placed within a half portion of the second solar module that is farthest from the first solar module in order to provide the necessary balance for attaching the solar module.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights