DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 19/169,388, filed 4/3/2025, which is a continuation of 18/615,162, filed 6/15/2022, which is a divisional application of 17/841,442, filed 6/16/2021.
Claims 1-18 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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,080 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,080 B2 teach all of the limitations of Claims 1-18.
Prior Art Discussion
Claim 1 recites “a racking frame mechanically supporting at least two solar modules in a vertical order,” and “at least two frame sensors vertically installed to associate position data with the at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules.”
These features are shown schematically in Fig. 7 of the instant specification.
The closest prior art, Saluccio (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0095888 A1), Roccaforte (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0005712 A1), and Hall (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0302021 A1) does not teach the combination of “a racking frame mechanically supporting at least two solar modules in a vertical order,” and “at least two frame sensors vertically installed to associate position data with the at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules.”
Although a plurality of modules are shown in Fig. 1 of Saluccio, they are not shown to be disposed in a racking frame in a vertical order. Further, while Saluccio teaches at least two sensors 30/40, these sensors merely detect module presence/absence, but not module position. Therefore, Saluccio does not teach the limitations of Claim 1.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Saluccio to comprise “a racking frame mechanically supporting at least two solar modules in a vertical order,” and “at least two frame sensors vertically installed to associate position data with the at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules,” because there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the structure of Saluccio to arrive at this combination of features.
Roccaforte does not teach “a racking frame mechanically supporting at least two solar modules in a vertical order.” Although a plurality of modules are shown in Figs. 1-2 of Roccaforte, they are not shown to be disposed on the frame in a vertical order. Roccaforte further fails to teach “at least two frame sensors vertically installed to associate position data with the at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules.”
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Roccaforte to comprise “a racking frame mechanically supporting at least two solar modules in a vertical order,” and “at least two frame sensors vertically installed to associate position data with the at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules,” because there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the structure of Roccaforte to arrive at this combination of features.
Hall does not teach “a racking frame mechanically supporting at least two solar modules in a vertical order.” Although a plurality of modules are shown in Figs. 1-5 of Hall, they are not shown to be disposed on a racking frame in a vertical order. Hall further fails to teach “at least two frame sensors vertically installed to associate position data with the at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules.”
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Hall to comprise “a racking frame mechanically supporting at least two solar modules in a vertical order,” and “at least two frame sensors vertically installed to associate position data with the at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules,” because there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the structure of Hall to arrive at this combination of features.
Claim 10 recites “at least two frame sensors vertically installed in a racking frame to associate position data with at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules,” and “the racking frame mechanically supports the at least two solar modules in a vertical order for detection by the at least two frame sensors.”
These features are shown schematically in Fig. 7 of the instant specification.
The closest prior art, Saluccio (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0095888 A1), Roccaforte (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0005712 A1), and Hall (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0302021 A1) does not teach the combination of “at least two frame sensors vertically installed in a racking frame to associate position data with at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules,” and “the racking frame mechanically supports the at least two solar modules in a vertical order for detection by the at least two frame sensors.”
Although a plurality of modules are shown in Fig. 1 of Saluccio, they are not shown to be disposed in a racking frame in a vertical order. Further, while Saluccio teaches at least two sensors 30/40, these sensors merely detect module presence/absence, but not module position. Therefore, Saluccio does not teach the limitations of Claim 1.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Saluccio to comprise “at least two frame sensors vertically installed in a racking frame to associate position data with at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules,” or to configure it so that “the racking frame mechanically supports the at least two solar modules in a vertical order for detection by the at least two frame sensors,” because there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the structure of Saluccio to arrive at this combination of features.
Roccaforte does not teach a racking frame “support[ing] the at least two solar modules in a vertical order for detection by the at least two frame sensors.” Although a plurality of modules are shown in Figs. 1-2 of Roccaforte, they are not shown to be disposed on the frame in a vertical order. Roccaforte further fails to teach “at least two frame sensors vertically installed in a racking frame to associate position data with at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules.”
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Roccaforte to comprise “at least two frame sensors vertically installed in a racking frame to associate position data with at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules,” or to configure it so that “the racking frame mechanically supports the at least two solar modules in a vertical order for detection by the at least two frame sensors,” because there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the structure of Roccaforte to arrive at this combination of features.
Hall does not teach a racking frame “support[ing] the at least two solar modules in a vertical order for detection by the at least two frame sensors.” Although a plurality of modules are shown in Figs. 1-5 of Hall, they are not shown to be disposed on a racking frame in a vertical order. Hall further fails to teach “at least two frame sensors vertically installed in a racking frame to associate position data with at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules.”
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Hall to comprise “at least two frame sensors vertically installed in a racking frame to associate position data with at least two solar modules and to detect presence of the at least two solar modules, wherein the at least two frame sensors generate at least two output signals comprising the position data and the presence of the at least two solar modules,” or to configure it so that “the racking frame mechanically supports the at least two solar modules in a vertical order for detection by the at least two frame sensors,” because there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the structure of Hall to arrive at this combination of features.
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-2:30 pm 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 303-897-4684. 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