therDETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . This is the first office action on the merits.
(2)
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A, in the reply filed on December 11, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-8 remain pending before the Office for review.
(3)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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 1 contains “configured to” language regarding the first rail side being configured to interface with a torque tube and the alignment slot being configured to receive the protruded guide structure to couple the solar module frame to the rail. This language renders the claim ambiguous as to the required structure. Specifically, a fair reading of the claimed invention suggests the “configured to” language regarding the first rail side should be interpreted to require that the first rail side have the capability of interfacing, but the “configured to” language regarding the alignment slot appears to require an actual physical connection. Accordingly, the use of the same “configured to” language to define two different types of structural relationships renders the claim unclear. Applicant should use more affirmative language to clarify what is and is not structurally required by the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is similarly ambiguous as to whether the structural connection is required by the claimed invention or if merely the capability of the connection is required.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 2-8 are also rejected due to their dependency on claims 1 and/or 2, respectively.
(4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reynolds et al., (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0271707).
With respect to claim 1, Examiner notes the statements “configured to interface with a torque tube” and “configured to receive the protruded guide structure to couple the solar module frame to the rail” are statements of intended use that do not further limit the claimed invention. The cited statements recite a function performed by the first rail side and the alignment slot, respectively. Any first rail slide and alignment slot meeting the requirements of the claimed invention are capable of the same use absent evidence to the contrary.
Reynolds teaches a solar module coupling assembly (10) comprising a solar module frame (210) comprising a frame side portion, the frame side portion (222) comprising a protruded guide structure (230). Figures 1, 2 and 8 and Paragraphs 26, 27, 29 and 39-41. Reynolds further teaches the assembly comprises a rail (50) comprising a first rail side (bottom) and a second rail side (top) that are opposite one another, wherein the first rail side is configured to interface with a torque tube (30) and the second rail side comprises an alignment slot (76), wherein the alignment slot is configured to receive the protruded guide structure to couple the solar module to the frame. Figures 1-4 and 8 and Paragraphs 28, 29 and 39-41.
With respect to claim 6, Reynolds teaches the protruded guide structure comprises a locating tab (232) extending from the frame side portion and the alignment slot (76) comprises an open inlet end (defined diagonally from channel opening to side wall (68) and a closed terminal end (intersection of top and side wall of the rail), the closed terminal end being opposite the open inlet end, wherein the open inlet end has a greater diameter than the closed terminal end. Figure 8 and Paragraphs 40 and 41.
With respect to claim 7, Reynolds teaches the tab extends out perpendicular to the frame side portion. Figure 8.
With respect to claim 8, Reynolds teaches the alignment slot tapers in diameter from the open inlet to the closed terminal end. Figure 8.
(5)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds et al., (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0271707).
With respect to claim 2, Reynolds teaches the assembly comprises the protruded guide structure along the frame side portion with a corresponding alignment slot that is configured to receive the protruded guide structure to couple the solar module frame to the rail, as explained above. Figures 1-4 and 8 and Paragraphs 26-29 and 39-41.
Regarding whether first and second protruded guide structures are present with corresponding first and second alignment slots, as per the MPEP, the mere duplication of parts is not patentably significant in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) (internal citation omitted).
Therefore, it’d be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the protruded guide structure and corresponding alignment slot so that two are present because doing so obtains an additional attachment point for the solar module frame, which is a known and expected result.
Accordingly, modified Reynolds teaches the assembly comprises first and second protruded guide structures that are distinct from one another, meaning they are spaced apart, and each is configured to be received within a corresponding first and second alignment slot to couple the solar module frame to the rail.
With respect to claim 3, modified Reynolds teaches the frame side portion further comprises a coupling aperture (226) adjacent to the protruded guide structure and the rail further comprises a coupling aperture (84) adjacent to the alignment slot, wherein when the alignment slot receives the corresponding protruded guide, the frame coupling aperture is axially aligned with the rail coupling aperture. Figures 3, 8 and 9 and Paragraphs 38-41. Furthermore, these structural features are duplicated, as explained above, to obtain additional attachment points.
With respect to claim 4, modified Reynolds further teaches a fastening member (158) extends through both the frame coupling aperture and the rail coupling aperture. Figure 8 and Paragraph 38. Furthermore, these structural features are duplicated, as explained above, to obtain additional attachment points.
With respect to claim 5, modified Reynolds further teaches the rail comprises a first longitudinal axis side extending between the first and second rail sides and a second longitudinal axis extending between the first and second rail sides opposite the first longitudinal axis side corresponding to the side walls (68). Figure 4. Reynolds also teaches the alignment slots are respectively located in each longitudinal axis side, meaning when they are duplicated, as explained above, each longitudinal axis side comprises two alignment slots. Furthermore, it’d be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to axially align the alignment slots to allow for uniform assembly of the solar module coupling assembly.
(6)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0341878) teaches a solar module mounting system comprising multiple protrusion couplings. Figure 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759