DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action 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.
In light of the claim amendments filed 7/28/2026, the claim objections are withdrawn, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn, and the prior art rejections are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are presented 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 2024/0128923 A1: This reference teaches a photovoltaic support with inward facing flanges and outward facing flanges (Figs. 18-20).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0122311 A1: This reference teaches a clamping photovoltaic frame with sidewalls and flanges (Fig. 16).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0265406 A1: This reference teaches a clamping photovoltaic frame with sidewalls and flanges (Fig. 4).
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 1-4, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuda, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0370619 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Matsuda teaches a solar module system (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0035]-[0084]).
The system of Matsuda comprises a first solar module frame, i.e. the frame 17B of module 5B (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0067]-[0078]).
The first solar module frame 17B 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, both of which are indicated in the inset below.
The first solar module frame 17B comprises a first outward facing lower flange 43B that extends normal to and out from the first sidewall, as indicated in the inset below (paragraph [0070]).
The first solar module frame 17B comprises a first fastening aperture 61B defined at the first outward facing lower flange (Fig. 4, paragraph [0070]).
The first solar module frame 17B comprises a first inward facing upper flange that extends out from the first sidewall and defines a first photovoltaic cell receptacle, indicated in the inset below.
The system of Matsuda comprises a second solar module frame, i.e. frame 17A of module 5A (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0067]-[0078]).
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, both of which are indicated in the inset below.
The second solar module frame comprises a second outward facing lower flange 43A that extends out from the third sidewall, indicated in the inset below (paragraph [0063]).
The second solar module frame comprises a second fastening aperture 61A defined at the second outward facing lower flange 43A (paragraph [0070]).
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, indicated in the inset below.
The inset below teaches that the first outward facing lower flange 43B of first solar module frame comprises a first planar member (i.e. the flange is planar) and the second outward facing lower flange 43A of the second solar module frame comprises a second planar member (i.e. is a planar member).
The inset below teaches that the first planar member 43B and the second planar member 43A are configured to contact one another with the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture axially aligned to receive a common fastening member 66 at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture (paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 2, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the first outward facing lower flange 43B 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 17B further comprises a third outward facing lower flange 43B that extends out from the second sidewall and a third fastening aperture 61B defined at the third outward facing lower flange (paragraph [0070]).
PNG
media_image2.png
604
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 4, the inset below teaches that the first solar module frame 17B further comprises a fourth inward facing upper flange that extends out from the second sidewall and defines a third photovoltaic cell receptacle that is axially aligned at a common elevation with the first photovoltaic cell receptacle.
PNG
media_image3.png
619
890
media_image3.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. This “lip” corresponds to the top surface of support 13.
PNG
media_image4.png
507
890
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 13, Matsuda teaches that the system further 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 (paragraph [0071]).
In reference to Claims 1 and 7-12, an alternate interpretation is presented.
In reference to Claim 1, Matsuda teaches a solar module system (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0035]-[0084]).
The system of Matsuda comprises a first solar module frame, i.e. the frame 17B of module 5B (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0067]-[0078]).
The first solar module frame 17B 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, both of which are indicated in the inset below.
The first solar module frame 17B comprises a first outward facing lower flange (corresponding to the indicated top flange of item 13) that extends normal to and out from the first sidewall, as indicated in the inset below.
The first solar module frame 17B comprises a first fastening aperture defined at the first outward facing lower flange (shown in the inset below).
The first solar module frame 17B comprises a first inward facing upper flange that extends out from the first sidewall and defines a first photovoltaic cell receptacle, indicated in the inset below.
The system of Matsuda comprises a second solar module frame, i.e. frame 17A of module 5A (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0067]-[0078]).
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, both of which are indicated in the inset below.
The second solar module frame comprises a second outward facing lower flange 43A that extends out from the third sidewall, indicated in the inset below (paragraph [0063]).
The second solar module frame comprises a second fastening aperture 61A defined at the second outward facing lower flange 43A (paragraph [0070]).
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, indicated in the inset below.
The inset below teaches that the first outward facing lower flange of first solar module frame comprises a first planar member (i.e. the flange is planar) and the second outward facing lower flange 43A of the second solar module frame comprises a second planar member (i.e. is a planar member).
The inset below teaches that the first planar member and the second planar member 43A are configured to contact one another with the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture axially aligned to receive a common fastening member 66 at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture (paragraph [0057]).
PNG
media_image5.png
624
915
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is noted that item 13 is construed as part of the “frame,” because it provides part of the support structure for the photovoltaic module.
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. This “lip” corresponds to flange 43B indicated in the inset below.
PNG
media_image6.png
527
890
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 8, the inset under the rejection of Claim 7 above teaches that a flange receptacle space is defined below the lip and above the first outward facing lower flange, and wherein the flange receptacle space is bounded at one side by the first sidewall and open at an opposite side, and wherein the flange receptacle space receives the second outward facing lower flange 43A of the second solar module frame with the second outward facing lower flange 43A overlaying the first outward facing lower flange.
In reference to Claim 9, the inset under the rejection of Claim 7 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 10, the inset under the rejection of Claim 7 above teaches that the lip extends out from the first sidewall a first distance that is less than a second distance the first outward facing lower flange extends from the first sidewall.
In reference to Claim 11, it is noted that the “lip” can be interpreted as only the portion of flange 43B between the fastening member and the first sidewall.
This interpretation teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the lip extends out from the first sidewall the first distance that terminates prior to intersecting a central longitudinal axis of the first fastening aperture.
This interpretation further teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein when the common fastening member is received at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture, the lip interfaces with the common fastening member 66.
In reference to Claim 16, Matsuda teaches a solar module frame (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0035]-[0084]).
The frame of Matsuda 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 (corresponding to the top surface of item 13), all of which are indicated in the inset below.
The frame further comprises a first fastening aperture defined at the first outward facing lower flange, corresponding to the aperture through which fastener 66 passes.
The frame further comprises a first inward facing upper flange that extends out from the first sidewall and defines thereat a first photovoltaic cell receptacle, indicated in the inset below.
The frame further comprises a lip that extends directly out from the first sidewall in a same direction as the first outward facing lower flange. This lip corresponds to the indicated flange 43B.
The inset below teaches that a flange receptacle space is defined below the lip and above the first outward facing lower flange, and wherein the flange receptacle space is bounded at one side by the first sidewall and open at an opposite side.
The frame comprises a second outward facing lower flange that extends out from the second sidewall, indicated in the inset below.
The frame comprises a second fastening aperture defined at the second outward facing lower flange, corresponding to the aperture through which the fastener passes, as indicated in the inset below.
The frame comprises a second inward facing upper flange that extends out from the second sidewall and defines thereat a second photovoltaic cell receptacle that is elevationally aligned with the first photovoltaic cell receptacle, as indicated in the inset below.
PNG
media_image7.png
636
1083
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is noted that item 13 is construed as part of the “frame,” because it provides part of the support structure for the photovoltaic module.
In reference to Claim 17, the inset under the rejection of Claim 16 above 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.
In reference to Claim 18, the inset under the rejection of Claim 16 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 43B extends out from the first sidewall a first distance that is less than a second distance the first outward facing lower flange extends from the first sidewall.
In reference to Claim 20, it is noted that the “lip” can be interpreted as only the portion of flange 43B between the fastening member and the first sidewall.
This interpretation teaches the limitations of Claim 20, wherein the lip extends out from the first sidewall the first distance that terminates prior to intersecting a central longitudinal axis of the first fastening aperture.
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 Matsuda, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0370619 A1), in view of Zimmermann (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0224284 A1).
In reference to Claim 5, Matsuda teaches that the system further comprises the common fastening member 66, inserted at each of the first fastening aperture and the second fastening aperture, shown in the inset above.
Matsuda 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 Matsuda 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0370619 A1).
In reference to Claim 14, Matsuda does not teach that the system necessarily comprises a first washer component that contacts the first outward facing lower flange and a second washer component that contacts the second outward facing lower flange.
However, he teaches that both plain and spring washers may suitably be attached to the fastening members 66 (paragraph [0071]).
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 both a plain and a spring washer to secure each fastening member 66.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein a first washer component contacts the first outward facing lower flange and a second washer component contacts the second outward facing lower flange, because both washers attached to each fastening 66 would be contacting (i.e. in at least thermal or structural contact with) the first and second outward facing lower flanges.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0370619 A1), in view of West, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0246549 A1).
In reference to Claim 15, Matsuda does not teach that 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.
However, he teaches that the washer/fastener combination secures the modules to an underlying support structure (Figs. 1-4).
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic array, West teaches that securing solar panels to a torque tube provides the benefit of allowing the panels to track the sun (paragraph [0015]).
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 secured the panels of Matsuda to a torque tube as an underlying support structure, to achieve the taught benefit of allowing the panels to track the sun.
Securing the panels of Matsuda to a torque tube as an underlying support structure, using the fasteners/washer structure described in Claim 14 above, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections and rejections presented in the non-final office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these objections and rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Matsuda and modified Matsuda.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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