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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2025 was filed is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 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) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 18, 20-21, 23, 25-28, 30-34, 37-39, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavieres (US 20210313926A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cavieres”).
Regarding claim 1, Cavieres discloses a clamp (Fig 3, clamp 104) for connecting a bracket (Figs 1 and 3, base bracket 120 of the base support 112) to a frame (Fig 1, panel support bracket 116 of panel frame 108), the clamp (104) comprising: a first clamp section (Figs 5 and 6) comprising: a first pair of legs (Figs 5 and 6, pair of legs 128) configured to move between a compressed configuration (Fig 8, clamp 104 is at compressed configuration) with the first pair of legs compressed towards one another (Fig 8, legs 128 are compressed towards one another) and an expanded configuration (Fig 7); and a first plurality of receiver slots (Figs 5 and 6, receiver slots 132), each of the first plurality of receiver slots (132) formed in a respective one of the first pair of legs (128), wherein the first plurality of receiver slots (132) is configured to receive a portion of the bracket (base bracket 120 in Figs 3 and 9B and 10A) and a portion of the frame (116) therein (Fig 9B); ……. the second clamp section (Figs 5 and 6, for a duplicate copy of exact same clamp 104) comprising: a second pair of legs (Figs 5 and 6, pair of legs 128) configured to move between a compressed configuration (Fig 8, clamp 104 is at compressed configuration) with the second pair of legs compressed towards one another (Fig 8, duplicate copy of legs 128 are compressed towards one another) and an expanded configuration (Fig 7); and a second plurality of receiver slots (Figs 5 and 6, duplicate copy of receiver slots 132), each of the second plurality of receiver slots (132) formed in a respective one of the second pair of legs (128), wherein the second plurality of receiver slots (132) are configured to receive a portion of the bracket (base bracket 120 in Figs 3 and 9B and 10A) and a portion of the frame (116) therein (Fig 9B); …….…………. wherein the first plurality of receiver slots is aligned with the second plurality of receiver slots (Fig 2, slots 132 of at least two adjacent clamps 104 are aligned/parallel on each side of the solar panel 106) such that a plane extends through both the first plurality of receiver slots and the second plurality of receiver slots in both the compressed configurations and the expanded configurations (a horizontal plane extends through slots 132 in Figs 7 and 8, as well as in Figs 10B and 11B).
However, Cavieres alone fails to disclose a second clamp section connected to the first clamp section,…….. and a flexible connection extending between and connecting the first clamp section and the second clamp section,
However, modified Cavieres teaches a second clamp section connected to the first clamp section (note: a duplicate copy of the same clamp 104 joined in an integral manner would facilitate or provide the first and second clamp sections),…….. and a flexible connection extending between and connecting the first clamp section and the second clamp section ([0036] lines 3-6, based on the material of construction of the legs 128 for compressing toward one another and thickness of the clamp body 126, two duplicate clamps 104 when formed in an integral configuration or structure would form a flexible connection between the duplicate clamps 104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cavieres base on the following rationale: referring to the particular size of the PV panel 106 being supported by total of four clamps 104 shown in Fig 2. Meanwhile, [0031] in last line: “The panel frame 108 is suitable for supporting a wide variety of PV panels 106”, and thus implying that some PV panels 106 may be much larger in size, which would require higher number of clamps than just four in total.
According to MPEP 2144.04, which describes examples from Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationales recite in part as follow:
“V ….. B. Making Integral In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
……. VI……… B. Duplication of Parts In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).”
Based on the totality of above, it would have been obvious to daisy-chain or join together at least two duplicate copy of the same clamp together in an integral configuration so as to accommodate larger sized PV panel so as to handle weather conditions of higher wind load while using fewer total number of clamps per PV panel, in view of the fact that according to MPEP passages recited above, it is obvious to duplicate parts and making parts integral.
As a result, above discussed advantages of daisy-chained dual clamp assembly by modifying Cavieres over the single-clamp original version taught by Cavieres serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cavieres in the manner discussed herein above, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the shape of the existing singular clamp 104 of Cavieres can be easily modified to become a double-clamp version because of the following two factors, namely, first factor is that the left and right hand portion of each clamp is symmetrical and mirror image in the middle, thus when become double clamp version, would still retain the symmetrical nature; second, the flexible bending structural feature achieved by the clamp body 126 at the apex 130 of the original single clamp of Cavieres can be used or adapted for replacing one set of foot 136 for connect together two clamps in the manner of a bridge, so the newly formed dual clamp can still be compressed properly when at the compressed state.
Regarding claim 2, Cavieres fails to disclose wherein the flexible connection comprises a bridge extending between the first clamp section and the second clamp section.
However, modified Cavieres teaches wherein the flexible connection comprises a bridge extending between the first clamp section and the second clamp section (note; when combining duplicate clamps 104 in an integral configuration, the adjacent pair of foot 136 is likely removed for the two clamps, so that a curved structure of same shape as clamp body 126 at apex 130 serves as a bridge between combined duplicate clamps 104, thereby permitting the two joined clamps 104 and corresponding legs to continue to be flexibly bending inward during compressed state).
Regarding claim 3, Cavieres fails to sufficiently disclose further comprising a tab disposed on and extending out from the bridge, wherein the tab is configured to engage and be retained in an opening formed in at least one of the bracket or the frame.
However, modified Cavieres teaches further comprising a tab (Fig 5, tab 138) disposed on and extending out from the bridge (note; when the two duplicate clamps 104 are joined together in an integral configuration, the adjacent pair of foot 136 is likely removed, so that a curved structure shaped same as clamp body 126 at apex 130 thereby serves as a bridge between joined duplicate clamps 104, and permitting the two joined clamps 104 and corresponding legs to continue to flexibly bend during compressed state), wherein the tab (138) is configured to engage and be retained in an opening formed in at least one of the bracket or the frame (Fig 11A, 138 engaged and retained in clamp slot 124).
Regarding claim 4, Cavieres fails to disclose wherein the tab is integrally formed with the bridge and is deformed out of plane with the bridge.
However, modified Cavieres teaches wherein the tab is integrally formed with the bridge and is deformed out of plane with the bridge (Fig 11B, tab 138 would be adjacent to the bridge which is shaped the same as clamp body 126 at apex 130, and deformed out of horizontal plane shown in Fig 7 when in relaxed state).
Regarding claim 6, Cavieres fails to disclose wherein the first pair of legs meet at a first apex, and the second pair of legs meet at a second apex.’
However, modified Cavieres teaches wherein the first pair of legs meet at a first apex, and the second pair of legs meet at a second apex (note; by joining duplicate clamps 104 in an integral configuration, adjacent pair of foot 136 is likely removed for each clamp, so that a curved structure being shaped same as clamp body 126 at apex 130 serves as a bridge between combined duplicate clamps 104; as a result, the two legs 128 of one clamp 104 would meet at one apex, while two legs 128 of another clamp 104 would meet at another apex).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Cavieres discloses further comprising a plurality of teeth (Fig 5, teeth 134) formed in at least one of upper edges or lower edges of the first plurality of receiver slots (Fig 5, teeth 134 at upper and lower edges of first receiver slot 132) and in at least one of upper edges or lower edges of second plurality of receiver slots (Fig 5, teeth 134 at upper and lower edges of second receiver slot 132).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Cavieres disclose wherein the clamp is formed from a single piece of sheet metal ([0035] lines 1-5).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Cavieres fails to disclose further comprising one or more additional clamp sections disposed between the first clamp section and the second clamp section.
However, modified Cavieres teaches further comprising one or more additional clamp sections disposed between the first clamp section and the second clamp section (note: by forming another duplicate clamp 104 and joined integrally to form a daisy chain of three clamps 104 together, would form additional clamp sections).
Regarding claim 13, Cavieres discloses a clamping system for clamping a solar panel to a base (Fig 3, clamp 104 for connecting base bracket 120 of the base support 112 to a panel support bracket 116 of panel frame 108), the clamping system (Figs 1 and 3) comprising: a bracket of the base (Fig 3, base bracket 120); a frame of the solar panel (Fig 3, panel support bracket 116 of panel frame 108 of PV panel 106); and a clamp (104) configured to approximate the bracket to the frame (Figs 3 and 11A), the clamp (104) comprising: a first clamp section (Figs 5 and 6) comprising: a first pair of legs (Figs 5 and 6, pair of legs 128) configured to move between a compressed configuration (Fig 8, clamp 104 is at compressed configuration) with the first pair of legs compressed towards one another (Fig 8, legs 128 are compressed towards one another) and an expanded configuration (Fig 7); and a first plurality of receiver slots (Figs 5 and 6, receiver slots 132), each of the first plurality of receiver slots (132) formed in a respective one of the first pair of legs (128), wherein the first plurality of receiver slots (132) is configured to receive a portion of the bracke (Figs 3 and 9B and 10A, base bracket 120) and a portion of the frame therein (Fig 9B); ……..the second clamp section (Figs 5 and 6, duplicate copy of same clamp 104) comprising: a second pair of legs (Figs 5 and 6, pair of legs 128) configured to move between a compressed configuration (Fig 8, clamp 104 is at compressed configuration) with the second pair of legs compressed towards one another (Fig 8, duplicate copy of legs 128 are compressed towards one another) and an expanded configuration (Fig 7); and a second plurality of receiver slots (Figs 5 and 6, duplicate copy of receiver slots 132), each of the second plurality of receiver slots (132) formed in a respective one of the second pair of legs (128), wherein the second plurality of receiver slots (132) are configured to receive a portion of the bracket (base bracket 120 in Figs 3 and 9B and 10A) and a portion of the frame therein (Fig 9B);
However, Cavieres fails to disclose a second clamp section connected to the first clamp section, …… and a flexible connection extending between and connecting the first clamp section and the second clamp section, wherein the first plurality of receiver slots is aligned with the second plurality of receiver slots such that a plane extends through both the first plurality of receiver slots and the second plurality of receiver slots in both the compressed configurations and the expanded configurations.
However, modified Cavieres teaches a second clamp section connected to the first clamp section (note: a duplicate copy of the same clamp 104 would facilitate or provide the two clamp sections), …… and a flexible connection extending between and connecting the first clamp section and the second clamp section, wherein the first plurality of receiver slots is aligned with the second plurality of receiver slots (Fig 2, slots 132 of at least two adjacent clamps 104 are aligned/parallel on each side of the solar panel 106) such that a plane extends through both the first plurality of receiver slots and the second plurality of receiver slots in both the compressed configurations and the expanded configurations (a horizontal plane extends through slots 132 in Figs 7 and 8, as well as in Figs 10B and 11B).
Regarding claim 14, Cavieres fails to disclose wherein the flexible connection comprises a bridge extending between the first clamp section and the second clamp section.
However, modified Cavieres teaches wherein the flexible connection comprises a bridge extending between the first clamp section and the second clamp section (note; when combining duplicate clamps 104 in an integral configuration, the adjacent pair of foot 136 is likely removed for each clamp, so that a curved structure same as clamp body 126 at apex 130 serves as a bridge between clamps 104, thereby permitting the two joined clamps 104 and corresponding legs to continue to be flexibly bend during compressed state).
Regarding claim 15, Cavieres fails to disclose further comprising a tab disposed on and extending out from the bridge, wherein the tab is configured to engage and be retained in an opening formed in at least one of the bracket or the frame.
However, modified Cavieres teaches further comprising a tab (Fig 5, tab 138) disposed on and extending out from the bridge (note; when combining duplicate clamps 104 in an integral configuration, the adjacent pair of foot 136 is likely removed for each clamp, so that a curved structure same as clamp body 126 at apex 130 serves as a bridge between combined duplicate clamps 104, thereby permitting the two joined clamps 104 and corresponding legs to continue to be flexibly bend during compressed state), wherein the tab (138) is configured to engage and be retained in an opening formed in at least one of the bracket or the frame (Fig 11A, 138 engaged and retained in clamp slot 124).
Regarding claim 16, Cavieres fails to disclose wherein the tab is integrally formed with the bridge and is deformed out of plane with the bridge.
However, modified Cavieres teaches wherein the tab is integrally formed with the bridge and is deformed out of plane with the bridge (Fig 11B, tab 138 would be adjacent to the bridge in shape of clamp body 126 at apex 130, and deformed out of horizontal plane shown in Fig 7 when in relaxed state).
Regarding claim 18, Cavieres fails to disclose wherein the first pair of legs meet at a first apex, and the second pair of legs meet at a second apex.
However, modified Cavieres teaches wherein the first pair of legs meet at a first apex, and the second pair of legs meet at a second apex (note; when combining duplicate clamps 104 in an integral configuration, adjacent pair of foot 136 is likely removed for each clamp, so that a curved structure shaped same as clamp body 126 at apex 130 serves as a bridge between combined duplicate clamps 104; as a result, two legs 128 of first clamp 104 would meet at one apex, while two legs 128 of second clamp 104 would meet at another apex).
Regarding claim 25, Cavieres teaches a method of connecting a bracket to a frame (Figs 1, 3 and 11A), the method comprising: applying an external force to a clamp to transition a first pair of legs of the clamp and a second pair of legs of the clamp connected to the first pair of legs from a first expanded configuration to a second compressed configuration ([0037] from relaxed state transition to compressed state, when legs 128 of clamp 104 are approximated under an external compressive force, see also Fig 8); receiving a portion of the bracket and a portion of the frame within a plurality of receiver slot (Figs 3 and 9B and 10A, receiver slots (132) to receive a portion of the bracket (base bracket 120)) and a portion of the frame (116) therein (Fig 9B)), each of the plurality of receiver slots formed in a respective one of each of the first pair of legs and second pair of legs (Figs 5 and 6, duplicate copy of receiver slots 132 for duplicate clamps 104, have two pairs of legs 128); and removing the external force from the first pair of legs and from the second pair of legs to allow the first and second pairs of legs to at least partially return to the first expanded configuration to clamp the bracket and frame in each of the plurality of receiver slots (Figs 11A and 11B).
Regarding claim 26, Cavieres discloses further comprising scratching at least one of the bracket or the frame with teeth formed in the plurality of receiver slots (Figs 10C and 11C).
Regarding claim 27, Cavieres fails to disclose further comprising retaining a tab disposed on and extending out from a bridge of the clamp in at least one opening formed in at least one of the frame and the bracket.
However, modified Cavieres teaches further comprising retaining a tab (Fig 5, tab 138) disposed on and extending out from a bridge of the clamp (note; when the two duplicate clamps 104 are joined together in an integral configuration, the adjacent pair of foot 136 is likely removed, so that a curved structure shaped same as clamp body 126 at apex 130 thereby serves as a bridge between joined duplicate clamps 104), in at least one opening formed in at least one of the frame and the bracket (Fig 11A, tab 138 engaged and retained in clamp slot 124).
Regarding claim 28, Cavieres teaches further comprising retaining a plurality of locking tabs extending from the plurality of receiver slots in an exterior leg of the first pair of legs and an exterior leg of the second pair of legs in openings formed in at least one of the frame and the bracket (Figs 11A and 11B).
Regarding claim 30, Cavieres teaches wherein applying an external force to a clamp comprises applying an external force to an exterior leg of the first pair of legs of a clamp and to an exterior leg of the second pair of legs of the clamp ([0037] from relaxed state transition to compressed state, when legs 128 of clamp 104 are approximated under an external compressive force, see also Fig 8).
Regarding claim 31, Cavieres discloses a clamping system (Fig 3, clamp 104) comprising: a bracket (Figs 1 and 3, base bracket 120 of the base support 112) including a plurality of grooves (Figs 4, 9A and 9B, clamp slots 124) formed on a lower surface of the bracket (Fig 4), wherein the plurality of grooves extends substantially parallel to an edge of the bracket (Fig 4); and a clamp (104) configured to approximate the bracket to a frame (Figs 3 and 11A), the clamp (104) comprising: a pair of legs (Figs 5 and 6, pair of legs 128) configured to move between a compressed configuration Fig 8, clamp 104 is at compressed configuration) with the pair of legs compressed towards one another (Fig 8, legs 128 are compressed towards one another) and an expanded configuration (Fig 7); a plurality of receiver slots (Figs 5 and 6, receiver slots 132), each of the plurality of receiver slots (132) formed in a respective one of the pair of legs (128), wherein the plurality of receiver slots is configured to receive a portion of the bracket and a portion of the frame therein (Figs 3 and 9B and 10A, base bracket 120) and a plurality of teeth extending from one or more edges of each of the plurality of receiver slots (Figs 5 and 6, teeth 134 extending from edges of receiver slot) and configured to interlock with the plurality of grooves (Fig 11B) to prevent movement of the clamp relative to the bracket in a direction substantially parallel to a direction in which the plurality of receiver slots extends ([0040] fully-engaged position, locking tabs 138 captured within clamp slots 124 to prevent retraction of the clamp from 116 and 120).
Regarding claim 32, Cavieres disclose wherein the frame is a frame of a solar panel (Figs 1-2, PV panel 106 has a panel frame 108).
Regarding claim 33, Cavieres fails to disclose wherein the pair of legs is a first pair of legs, further comprising a second pair of legs connected to the first pair of legs, and a flexible connection extending between and connecting the first pair of legs to the second pair of legs.
However, modified Cavieres teaches wherein the pair of legs is a first pair of legs, further comprising a second pair of legs connected to the first pair of legs (Figs 5 and 6, pair of legs 128 of a duplicate clamp 104), and a flexible connection extending between and connecting the first pair of legs to the second pair of legs ([0036] lines 3-6, based on the material of construction of the legs 128 for compressing toward one another and thickness of the clamp body 126, two duplicate clamps 104 when formed in an integral configuration or structure would form a flexible connection between pairs of legs 128 of the duplicate clamps 104).
Regarding claim 34, Cavieres discloses wherein the second pair of legs is symmetrical with the first pair of legs (Fig 2, adjacent clamps 104 are identical, thus corresponding pairs of legs 128 are thereby symmetrical).
Regarding claim 37, Cavieres discloses a method connecting a bracket to a frame (Figs 1 and 3), the method comprising: applying an external force to a clamp to transition a first exterior leg and a second exterior leg of the clamp from an expanded configuration to a compressed configuration ([0037]: from relaxed state transition to compressed state, when legs 128 of clamp 104 are approximated under an external compressive force, see also transition from Fig 7 to Fig 8 ); receiving a portion of the bracket and a portion of the frame within a plurality of receiver slots (Figs 3, 9B and 10A, receiver slots (132) to receive a portion of the bracket (base bracket 120 in Figs 3 and 9B and 10A) and a portion of the frame (116) therein (Fig 9B)), each of the plurality of receiver slots (132) formed in a respective one of the first and second exterior legs (128); removing the external force from the first exterior leg and the second exterior leg to allow the first and second exterior legs to at least partially return to the expanded configuration (Fig 11B); and preventing movement of the clamp relative to the bracket in a direction substantially parallel to a direction in which the plurality of receiver slots extend by interlocking a plurality of teeth extending along a lower edge of each of the plurality of receiver slots with a plurality of grooves extending at least partially along an edge of the bracket on a lower surface of the bracket (Figs 5 and 6, teeth 134 extending from edges of receiver slot to interlock with the plurality of grooves in Fig 11B; [0040] fully-engaged position, locking tabs 138 captured within clamp slots 124 to prevent retraction of the clamp from 116 and 120).
Regarding claim 38, Cavieres discloses further comprising scratching at least one of the bracket or the frame with teeth formed in the plurality of receiver slots (Figs 10C and 11C).
Regarding claim 39, Cavieres discloses further comprising retaining a plurality of locking tabs extending from receiver slots of the plurality of receiver slots formed in the first and second exterior legs in openings formed in at least one of the frame and the bracket (Figs 11A and 11B; [0040]: fully-engaged position, locking tabs 138 captured within clamp slots 124 to prevent retraction of the clamp from 116 and 120).
Regarding claim 41, Cavieres discloses wherein applying an external force to the clamp comprises applying an external force to the first exterior leg and a second exterior leg of the clamp (Fig 8).
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 18, 20-21, 23, 25-28, 30-34, 37-39, 41, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cavieres to join together two clamps to form an integral structure as previously discussed in details for claim 1 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 19, 22, 29, 35-36 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavieres (US 20210313926A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cavieres”) in view of Legall (US 20190312546A1, hereinafter referred to as “Legall”).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Cavieres fails to disclose wherein load distribution flanges form edges of at least one of the first plurality of receiver slots and at least one of the second plurality of receiver slots, wherein the load distribution flanges are configured to press against a surface of the bracket, and wherein the edges of at least one of the first plurality of receiver slots and at least one of the second plurality of receiver slots are edges furthest from the first apex and second apex.
However, Legall teaches wherein load distribution flanges form edges of at least one of the first plurality of receiver slots (Fig 7, lateral flange 16 form edges of receiver slot) and at least one of the second plurality of receiver slots (Fig 7, lateral flange 16 form edges of receiver slot), wherein the load distribution flanges (16) are configured to press against a surface of the bracket (Figs 8 and 10, bracket 201), and wherein the edges of at least one of the first plurality of receiver slots and at least one of the second plurality of receiver slots are edges furthest from the first apex and second apex (Fig 7, apex (19), Figs 8 and 10, flanges 16 press against bracket (201)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cavieres by Legall based on the following rationale: referring to Cavieres as shown by Figs 1 and 3, the clamp 104 is designed for securing and clamping together a bracket and a frame that are aligned in parallel configuration. On the other hand, referring to Figs 9 and 10 of Legall, the clamp 10 is designed for securing and clamping together 100 and 200 in perpendicular configuration. As a result, above discussed difference as taught by Legall over Cavieres serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Cavieres by Legall, especially for different mounting configurations of PV panel and framework, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both references Cavieres and Legall belong as analogous art in the field of quick install fastening clamps/clips for photovoltaic panel mounting.
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Cavieres fails to disclose further comprising one or more stiffening ribs formed on one or more legs of the first and second legs, wherein each stiffening rib is located adjacent to an associated receiver slot of an associated leg of the one or more legs.
However, Legall teaches further comprising one or more stiffening ribs formed on one or more legs of the first and second legs, wherein each stiffening rib is located adjacent to an associated receiver slot of an associated leg of the one or more legs (Fig 12, stiffening ribs (22) of Fig 2 on leg (18) and adjacent to receiver slot formed below hooking teeth 174 and bottom edge of jaw 15, and determined interval 14 in Fig 7).
Regarding claim 29, Cavieres fails to disclose further comprising pressing load distribution flanges formed on a lower edge of at least one of the plurality of receiver slots against a bottom surface of the bracket.
However, Legall teaches further comprising pressing load distribution flanges formed on a lower edge of at least one of the plurality of receiver slots against a bottom surface of the bracket (Fig 7, lateral flange 16 form edges of receiver slot, apex (19), Figs 8 and 10, flanges 16 press against bracket (201); Figs 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 35, Cavieres fails to disclose further comprising one or more flanges extending from one or more legs of the pair of legs, wherein the one or more flanges comprise a plurality of teeth extending along an edge of the one or more flanges and configured to interlock with the plurality of grooves.
However, Legall and Cavieres combined teach the following: further comprising one or more flanges extending from one or more legs of the pair of legs, wherein the one or more flanges comprise a plurality of teeth extending along an edge of the one or more flanges and configured to interlock with the plurality of grooves (Legall: Fig 14, flanges (23) from legs (11), with teeth 174 extending from edge of flange (23) to interlock with groove of Cavieres, Fig 4, clamp slot 124).
Regarding claim 36, Cavieres fails to disclose further comprising one or more stiffening ribs formed on one or more legs of the pair of legs, wherein each stiffening rib is located adjacent to an associated receiver slot of an associated leg.
However, Legall teaches further comprising one or more stiffening ribs formed on one or more legs of the pair of legs, wherein each stiffening rib is located adjacent to an associated receiver slot of an associated leg (Fig 12, stiffening ribs (22) of Fig 2 on leg ((18) and adjacent to receiver slot).
Regarding claim 40, Cavieres fails to disclose further comprising interlocking a plurality of teeth extending along one or more flanges extending from one or more of the first exterior leg and the second exterior leg with the plurality of grooves.
However, Legall and Cavieres combined teach the following: further comprising interlocking a plurality of teeth extending along one or more flanges extending from one or more of the first exterior leg and the second exterior leg with the plurality of grooves (Legall: Fig 14, flanges (23) from legs (11), with teeth 174 extending from edge of flange (23) to interlock with groove of Cavieres, Fig 4, clamp slot 124).
Regarding claims 10, 22, 29, 35, 36 and 40, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cavieres by Legall based on same rationale previously discussed for claims 7 and 19 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5, 12, 17, 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Cavieres and Legall fails to disclose or teach “further comprising relief slots disposed adjacent to a connection between the tab and the bridge, wherein the relief slots are configured increase a flexibility of the tab to an applied force” of claims 5, 12, 12 and 24, respectively. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kilgore (US20130048056A1) discloses a clip with double clamps which provide frame to strut attachment for solar panel assembly. Havener (US 3055686) discloses a clip type fastener adapted to suspend elongated articles from supporting beams and struts. Liefer (US 4557086) discloses a clamp disposed at end of a post with two legs configured to move between compressed configuration and engaged configuration, and having V-shape. Liu (US 9631654B2) discloses a fastening member for fastening and unfastening at least two panel members, which including elastic arms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 am MT--5:00 pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights