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 1-20 are pending. Claim 20 is withdrawn. Claims 1-19 are examined below.
Election/Restrictions
The requirement for an election/restriction has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, lines 2-3, the phrase “the length of” is repeated. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5, 8 and 12 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 term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention because the meets and bounds of what constitutes “substantially” is unknown.
Claim 5 recites the second device is installed at an angle with respect to a vertical line. No reference is provided for the term vertical and is therefore indefinite.
Claim 8 recites a second arm which is co-planar. Applicant does not provide a definition for coplanar. The dictionary definition is within the same plane. Applicant disclosed end bracket (400) is not shown to have a coplanar arm (see fig. 4A). The text states arm 404 has a portion that is coplanar (see applicant’s specification para [0010] and [0045]), yet the referenced portion of arm 404 is parallel, but not coplanar with the base (410) as shown (see fig. 4A). The term coplanar is indefinite in light of the figure. The text and claim must be updated or the figure must be updated.
Claim 12 is directed to a ballast device. By a recitation of intended use, applicant is comparing length of the ballast device to an unknown solar module. As the length of the solar module is an unknown hypothetical without structure pertinent to the claim, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nickerson (US 2022/0345076).
Regarding claim 1, Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system (200 for mounting module 290) comprising:
a bracket having a base (front ballast support fascia 241, and feet 299, see fig. 6) and at least two arms (230 and 220) extending outward from the base at an angle with reference to the base (extending up creates angle from 241, and extending forward creates an angle with 299, see fig. 6), where an arm of the at least two arms (230, 220) is configured to couple with a solar module (couples to solar module 290, see fig. 5, para [0066]-[0067]); and
a ballast device (front ballast 260, rear ballast 270) having an interior chamber configured to receive a flowable material (i.e., configured to retain fluid), and where the ballast device has at least one surface feature configured to receive the bracket (i.e. ballast (260) receives bracket through surface engaging front support fascia 241) and secures the solar module to a mounting surface (ground or roof, see abstract, para [0066]-[0069], and [0076]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 9, Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system of claim 1, where the ballast device comprises at least one opening (fill neck 263/273) for receiving the flowable material (see para [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 11, Nickerson discloses a ballast device for a solar array, the ballast device comprising:
a ballast device (261) having an interior chamber configured to receive a flowable material (i.e., configured to retain a fluid), and where the ballast device has at least one integral surface feature (rear surface) configured to receive a bracket (200, specifically front ballast support fascia 241) (see para [0066]-[0067]).
The limitation that the bracket is for securing a solar module is intended use given weight to the extent the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Nickerson discloses the intended use (i.e., module (290) (see para [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Nickerson discloses a ballast device of claim 11, where the ballast device has a length (shown in fig. 6, see para [0066]-[0067]).
The limitation “where the solar module has a length and a width” is reciting structure to a hypothetical device that is recited as intended use. Weight is not given to structural limitations of intended use. The limitation that the length of the ballast device is substantially equal to the length of the solar module is comparing the ballast device length to a hypothetical structure recited in intended use. As weight is not given to structural limitations of intended use, comparison to said structure is not examined.
Regarding claim 13, Nickerson discloses a ballast device of claim 12, where the ballast device (261) comprises an elongated rectangular shape (shown in fig. 6, see para [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 14, Nickerson discloses a ballast device of claim 13, where the ballast device comprises at least one opening for receiving the flowable material (fill neck 263) (see para [0080]).
Regarding claim 16, Nickerson discloses a ballast device of claim 15, where the ballast device is disposed (see figs. 4-6, and abstract, para [0066]-[0067].
The limitation that the ballast is disposed on a mounting surface and at least partially below a top surface of the solar module to form a wind break and limit wind penetration underneath the solar module is intended use and is given weight to the extent that the ballast can perform the intended use. The ballast of Nickerson can perform the intended use.
Regarding claim 17, Nickerson discloses a ballast device of claim 16, further comprising a second ballast device (270) (see para [0066]-[0067]).
The limitation that a second ballast device disposed along an opposite side of the solar module from the ballast device is intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Nickerson is able to perform the intended use.
Regarding claim 18, Nickerson discloses a ballast device of claim 17.
The limitation “where the second ballast device is installed at an angle with respect to a vertical line to create a downward force on the solar module when the second ballast device is impinged by wind” is intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Nickerson can perform the intended use.
Regarding claim 20, Nickerson discloses a method comprising:
providing a bracket having a base (front ballast support fascia 241, and feet 299, see fig. 6) and at least two arms (230 and 220) extending outward from the base at an angle with reference to the base (extending up creates angle from 241, and extending forward creates an angle with 299, see fig. 6), where an arm of the at least two arms (230, 220) is configured to couple with a solar module (couples to solar module 290, see fig. 5, para [0066]-[0067]); and
providing a ballast device (front ballast 260, rear ballast 270) having an interior chamber configured to receive a flowable material (i.e., configured to retain fluid), and where the ballast device has at least one surface feature configured to receive the bracket (i.e. ballast (260) receives bracket through surface engaging front support fascia 241) and secures the solar module to a mounting surface (ground or roof, see abstract, para [0066]-[0069], and [0076]-[0081]).
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 2-5, 8, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickerson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further as follows:
Regarding claim 2, Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system of claim 1, where the solar module has a length and a width (shown in fig. 5, see para [0087]), and where the ballast device (260/270) has a length substantially equal to the length of the length of the solar module, i.e., the ballast device consisting of two fluid retaining containers extends from the front ballast support fascia (241) (support for ballast 260) to the rear ballast support fascia (251) (support for ballast 270). As the ballast device taken as a whole extends from front to rear, the ballast device extends over a length “substantially” equal to the solar module.
Further, the court has held absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make a device integral or separable, as the use of a one piece construction (i.e. one ballast with either one or two fluid retaining portions extending from front to back) instead of a multiple piece structure (as disclosed by Nickerson) is merely a matter of engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 3, Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system of claim 2, where the ballast device is disposed on the mounting surface (ground or roof, through front and rear ballast support fascia 241/251) and at least partially below a top surface of the solar module (shown in figs. 4-6) (see para [0066]-[0067]).
The limitation wherein the ballast device is to form a wind break and limit wind penetration underneath the solar module is intended use and is given weight to the extent the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Nickerson is able to perform the intended use.
Regarding claim 4, Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system of claim 3, further comprising a second ballast device (270) disposed along an opposite side of the solar module from the ballast device (see fig. 6). Specifically, as discussed above, the ballast device of Nickerson is separated into two ballast devices, one ballast device (260) at the front and one ballast device (270) at the rear (see para [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 5, Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system of claim 4, where the second ballast device is installed at an angle with respect to a vertical line (either zero degrees or 90 degrees, depending on which angle is measure) (see figs. 4-6, para [0066]-[0068] and [0076]-[0081]).
The limitation that the installation is to create a downward force on the solar module when the second ballast device is impinged by wind is intended use. Nickerson can perform the intended use.
Regarding claim 8, Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system of claim 1, further comprising an end bracket (250/251) having a base (rear ballast support fascia 251), an arm (250) extending upward from the base (251) (shown in fig. 6), and an arm (not identified) that is coplanar with the base (shown in fig. 6, see mark-up below), and where the end bracket is configured to couple with an anchoring device (rear panel retention structure 282, figs. 6B, 10 and 11, see para [0067]). Specifically, end bracket base (rear ballast support fascia 251) is shown in fig. 6 to have two parts, one part of which is considered a co-planar arm.
Regarding claim 10, Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system of claim 1, where the ballast device (261/271) comprises an elongated rectangular shape (shown in fig. 6, see also obviousness discussion of claim 2).
Regarding claim 19, Nickerson discloses a ballast device of claim 18, including a first and second ballast (260/270) (see discussion of claim 18, figs. 4-6, para [0066]-[0067]).
Nickerson does not disclose the ballast device further comprises a third ballast device disposed on top of the second ballast device.
A third ballast device is merely a division of the second ballast into a second and third ballast stacked. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art absent criticality or unexpected results, to form the second ballast (270) by separating the second ballast device to a second and third stacked ballast device as the court has held the use of a one piece construction instead of a multiple piece structure is merely a matter of engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP § 2144.04.
Further, the court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to merely duplicate parts as the duplication has no patentable significance (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 6, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickerson as applied to claims 1 and 11-14 above, and further in view of Garcia Lopez (ES 1112181).
Regarding claim 6, Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system of claim 1, but does not disclose where at least one arm of the at least two arms comprises one or more barbs configured to lock the bracket into the at least one surface feature.
Lopez is analogous art to Nickerson as Lopez discloses support for a solar module (see abstract). Lopez discloses concrete trapezoid blocks (1) for supporting solar modules (6), wherein the concrete blocks reads on ballast (see fig. 4, para [0028]-[0031]). The cement blocks (ballast) are joined by barbs (anchors 7, used to join to ballast 1 through joiner 5) (see fig. 3, para [0030]-[0031]) for a secure hold.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the arm of Nickerson to include a barb to join with the ballast as the barb is a known method of securely joining elements.
The court has held it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., the arm of Nickerson with the barb of Lopez)) according to known methods (as disclosed by Lopez), wherein the result is predictable (secured ballast).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nickerson discloses a solar module mounting system of claim 6, where the at least one surface feature comprises a slot configured to receive at least one arm of the bracket, (i.e., in view of Lopez, the Lopez surface feature, Joiner 5, is a slot receiving joining feature, reading on arm, Panel Anchor 7; fig. 1-4; para. [0028]-[0031] and entirety of document).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the relevant date to modify the system of Portable Solar as taught by Garcia Lopez for the purpose of providing a support piece that simplifies assembly and reduces installation costs (Lopez para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Nickerson modified in view of Lopez discloses a ballast device of claim 14, where the at least one integral surface feature comprises a slot (shown in Lopez fig. 1).
The limitation that the slot is configured to receive at least one arm of a hypothetical bracket is intended use. Modified Nickerson is able to perform the intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bragagna et al. (US 2014/0366465); Neal et al. (US 2023/0216441), Wildes et al. (US 2016/0336895).
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