DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 19/020,492, filed 2/14/2025, which claims priority to provisional application 63/622,716, filed 1/19/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0000721 A1: This reference teaches a clamping photovoltaic frame with sidewalls and flanges (Figs. 71-73).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0146763 A1: This reference teaches a clamping photovoltaic frame with sidewalls and flanges (Fig. 25).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0180404 A1: This reference teaches a clamping photovoltaic frame with sidewalls and flanges (Fig. 9).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0251567 A1: This reference teaches a clamping photovoltaic frame with sidewalls and flanges (Fig. 10).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “spacing” in line 3. It is the Examiner’s position that this limitation would be more appropriately written as “spaced.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “defines” in line 3. It is the Examiner’s position that this limitation would be more appropriately written as “defined.” 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 11-12 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.
Claim 11 recites “the distance that terminates…” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “a distance that terminates…”
Claim 12 is indefinite, because of its dependence on Claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0040934 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Xie teaches a solar module system (Figs. 13-16, paragraphs [0033]-[0034]).
The system of Xie comprises a first solar module frame, corresponding to the frame of module 45, indicated in the inset below.
The inset below teaches that the first solar module frame comprises a first sidewall at a first side of the first solar module frame and a second sidewall at a second, opposite side of the first solar module frame.
The inset below teaches that the first solar module frame comprises a first outward facing lower flange that extends out from the first sidewall.
The inset below teaches that a first fastening aperture is defined at the first outward facing lower flange, corresponding to the aperture through which fastener 11 extends.
The inset below teaches that the first solar module frame comprises a first inward facing upper flange that extends out from the first sidewall and defines a first photovoltaic cell receptacle.
The system of Xie comprises a second solar module frame, corresponding to the frame of module 46, indicated in the inset below.
The inset below teaches that the second solar module frame comprises a third sidewall at a first side of the second solar module frame and a fourth sidewall at a second, opposite side of the second solar module frame.
The inset below teaches that the second solar module frame comprises a second outward facing lower flange that extends out from the third sidewall.
The inset below teaches that the second solar module frame comprises a second fastening aperture defined at the second outward facing lower flange, corresponding to the aperture through which fastener 11 extends.
The inset below teaches that the second solar module frame comprises a second inward facing upper flange that extends out from the third sidewall and defines a second photovoltaic receptacle.
The inset below teaches that the first outward facing lower flange of first solar module frame and the second outward facing lower flange of the second solar module frame are configured to overlay one another with the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture axially aligned to receive a common fastening member 11 at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture.
PNG
media_image1.png
685
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
487
811
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 2, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the first outward facing lower flange extends out from the first sidewall at a bottom portion of the first sidewall, and that the first inward facing upper flange extends out from the first sidewall at a top portion of the first sidewall spaced apart from the first outward facing lower flange along a length of the first sidewall.
In reference to Claim 6, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the first outward facing lower flange of first solar module frame and the second outward facing lower flange of the second solar module frame overlay and contact one another with the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture axially aligned to receive the common fastening member at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture.
In reference to Claim 7, the inset below teaches that the system further comprises a lip that extends out from the first sidewall of the first solar module frame in a same direction as the first outward facing lower flange (i.e. in a direction outward of the first sidewall).
PNG
media_image3.png
399
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 8, the inset below teaches that a flange receptacle space is defined between the lip, the first outward facing lower flange, and the first sidewall, and wherein the flange receptacle space receives the second outward facing lower flange of the second solar module frame with the second outward facing lower flange overlaying (i.e. vertically aligned with) the first outward facing lower flange.
PNG
media_image4.png
487
659
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claims 7-12, an alternate interpretation is presented herein.
In reference to Claim 7, the inset below teaches that the system further comprises a lip that extends out from the first sidewall of the first solar module frame in a same direction as the first outward facing lower flange (i.e. away from the sidewall).
PNG
media_image5.png
399
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 8, the inset below teaches that a flange receptacle space is defined between the lip, the first outward facing lower flange, and the first sidewall, and wherein the flange receptacle space receives the second outward facing lower flange of the second solar module frame with the second outward facing lower flange overlaying (i.e. vertically aligned with) the first outward facing lower flange.
PNG
media_image6.png
484
624
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 9, the inset below teaches that the lip extends out from the first sidewall at an elevational location along the first sidewall that is between the first outward facing lower flange and the first inward facing upper flange.
PNG
media_image7.png
400
800
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 10, the inset below teaches that the lip extends out from the first sidewall a distance that is less than a distance the first outward facing lower flange extends from the first sidewall.
PNG
media_image8.png
387
708
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 11, the inset under the rejection of Claim 10 above teaches that the lip extends out from the first sidewall the distance that terminates prior to intersecting a central longitudinal axis of the first fastening aperture.
In reference to Claim 12, the inset under the rejection of Claim 10 above teaches that, when the common fastening member 11 is received at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture, the lip interfaces with (i.e. is structurally connected to) the common fastening member.
In reference to Claim 16, Xie teaches a solar module frame, corresponding to the frame of module 45, indicated in the inset below (Figs. 13-16, paragraphs [0033]-[0034]).
The inset below teaches that the solar module frame comprises a first sidewall at a first side of the first solar module frame, and a second sidewall at a second, opposite side of the first solar module frame.
The inset below teaches that the solar module frame comprises a first outward facing lower flange that extends out from the first sidewall.
The inset below teaches that a first fastening aperture is defined at the first outward facing lower flange, corresponding to the aperture through which fastener 11 extends.
The inset below teaches that the first solar module frame comprises a first inward facing upper flange that extends out from the first sidewall and defines thereat a first photovoltaic cell receptacle.
The inset below teaches that the solar module frame comprises a lip that extends out from the first sidewall in a same direction as the first outward facing lower flange.
The inset below teaches that first solar module frame comprises a second outward facing lower flange that extends out from the second sidewall.
The inset below teaches that the solar module frame comprises a second fastening aperture defined at the second outward facing lower flange.
The inset below teaches that the solar module frame comprises a second inward facing upper flange that extends out from the second sidewall and defines thereat a second photovoltaic receptacle that is elevationally aligned with the first photovoltaic cell receptacle.
17. The frame of claim 16, wherein a flange receptacle space is defined between the lip, the first outward facing lower flange, and the first sidewall, and wherein the flange receptacle space is elevationally aligned along the first sidewall with the second outward facing lower flange at the second sidewall.
PNG
media_image9.png
476
811
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 17, the inset below teaches that a flange receptacle space is defined between the lip, the first outward facing lower flange, and the first sidewall, and wherein the flange receptacle space is elevationally aligned along the first sidewall with the second outward facing lower flange at the second sidewall.
PNG
media_image10.png
476
824
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 18, the inset under the rejection of Claim 17 above teaches that the lip extends out from the first sidewall at an elevational location along the first sidewall that is between the first outward facing lower flange and the first inward facing upper flange.
In reference to Claim 19, the inset under the rejection of Claim 16 above teaches that the lip extends out from the first sidewall a distance that is less than a distance the first outward facing lower flange extends from the first sidewall.
In reference to Claim 20, the inset under the rejection of Claim 16 above teaches that the lip extends out from the first sidewall the distance that terminates prior to intersecting a central longitudinal axis of the first fastening aperture.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Au (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0365827 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Au teaches a solar module system (Figs. 1-17, paragraphs [0044]-[0082]).
The inset below teaches that the system of Au comprises a first solar module frame, corresponding to the upper frame of the “top hat” structure of Figs. 1-17.
The inset below teaches that the first solar module frame comprises a first sidewall at a first side of the first solar module frame, a second sidewall at a second, opposite side of the first solar module frame, a first outward facing lower flange that extends out from the first sidewall, a first fastening aperture defined at the first outward facing lower flange, and a first inward facing upper flange that extends out from the first sidewall and defines a first photovoltaic cell receptacle.
The inset below teaches that the system of Au comprises a second solar module frame, corresponding to the lower frame of the “top hat” structure of Figs. 1-17.
The inset below teaches that the second solar module frame comprises a third sidewall at a first side of the second solar module frame, a fourth sidewall at a second, opposite side of the second solar module frame, a second outward facing lower flange that extends out from the third sidewall, a second fastening aperture defined at the second outward facing lower flange, and a second inward facing upper flange that extends out from the third sidewall and defines a second photovoltaic receptacle.
The inset below teaches that the first outward facing lower flange of first solar module frame and the second outward facing lower flange of the second solar module frame are configured to overlay one another with the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture axially aligned to receive a common fastening member at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture.
PNG
media_image11.png
606
1016
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 2, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the first outward facing lower flange extends out from the first sidewall at a bottom portion of the first sidewall, and that the first inward facing upper flange extends out from the first sidewall at a top portion of the first sidewall spaced apart from the first outward facing lower flange along a length of the first sidewall.
In reference to Claim 3, the inset below teaches that the first solar module frame further comprises a third outward facing lower flange that extends out from the second sidewall and a third fastening aperture defined at the third outward facing lower flange.
PNG
media_image12.png
582
918
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 4, the inset below teaches that the first solar module frame further comprises a fourth inward facing upper flange that extends out from the second sidewall and defines a third photovoltaic cell receptacle (i.e. a top surface of the receptacle that includes the locking structure around the photovoltaic panel) that is axially aligned at a common elevation with the first photovoltaic cell receptacle.
PNG
media_image13.png
608
687
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 6, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the first outward facing lower flange of first solar module frame and the second outward facing lower flange of the second solar module frame overlay and contact one another with the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture axially aligned to receive the common fastening member at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture.
In reference to Claim 7, the inset below teaches that the system further comprises a lip that extends out from the first sidewall of the first solar module frame in a same direction as the first outward facing lower flange (i.e. in a direction outward of the first sidewall).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0040934 A1), in view of Zimmermann (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0224284 A1).
In reference to Claim 5, Xie teaches that the system further comprises the common fastening member, inserted at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture, shown in the inset above.
Xie does not teach that the common fastening member comprises a blind rivet.
To solve the same problem of providing a support structure for a photovoltaic device, Zimmermann teaches that connections in such systems may suitably comprise blind rivets as connection structures, and that blind rivets provide the benefit of being mounted only from a single side (paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used blind rivets as the common fastening members in the system of Xie, based on Zimmermann’s disclosure that blind rivets are suitable for securing photovoltaic devices to support structures, and that blind rivets provide the benefit of being mounted only from a single side (paragraph [0028]).
Using blind rivets as the common fastening members in the device of Xie teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the common fastening member comprises a blind rivet.
It is noted that “set to fasten the first solar module frame and the second solar module frame to a torque tube” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0365827 A1), in view of Zimmermann (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0224284 A1).
In reference to Claim 5, Au teaches that the system further comprises the common fastening member, inserted at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture, shown in the inset above.
Au does not teach that the common fastening member comprises a blind rivet, and that the fastener is set to fasten the first solar module frame and the second solar module frame to a torque tube (Fig. 1).
To solve the same problem of providing a support structure for a photovoltaic device, Zimmermann teaches that connections in such systems may suitably comprise blind rivets as connection structures, and that blind rivets provide the benefit of being mounted only from a single side (paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used blind rivets as the common fastening members in the system of Au, based on Zimmermann’s disclosure that blind rivets are suitable for securing photovoltaic devices to support structures, and that blind rivets provide the benefit of being mounted only from a single side (paragraph [0028]).
Using blind rivets as the common fastening members in the device of Au teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the common fastening member comprises a blind rivet.
It is noted that “set to fasten the first solar module frame and the second solar module frame to a torque tube” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0365827 A1), in view of McPheeters, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0085394 A1).
In reference to Claim 13, Au teaches that the system further comprises at least one securing component that contacts at least one of the first outward facing lower flange and the second outward facing lower flange, as indicated in the inset below.
He does not teach that these securing components are washers. Instead, he teaches that the bolts of his invention are secured with nuts, or other fastener structures (paragraph [0064]).
To solve the same problem of securing photovoltaic modules, McPheeters teaches that suitable items for securing bolts in a photovoltaic system include nuts (as in Au) or washers (paragraph [0034], Figs. 2-3).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used washers as the securing items in the system of Au, based on the disclosure of McPheeters.
Using washers as the securing items in the system of Au, based on the disclosure of McPheeters, teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the system comprises at least one washer component that contacts at least one of the first outward facing lower flange and the second outward facing lower flange.
Using washers as the securing items in the system of Au, based on the disclosure of McPheeters, teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the at least one washer component is a first washer component that contacts the first outward facing lower flange, and wherein the system further comprises a second washer component that contacts the second outward facing lower flange (shown in the inset below).
Using washers as the securing items in the system of Au, based on the disclosure of McPheeters, teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the first washer component contacts (i.e. at least thermally and/or structurally contacts) a torque tube at one side and contacts the first outward facing lower flange at a second, opposite side (see the inset below and Au, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image14.png
606
842
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights