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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Marley in view of Ramos does not disclose an adapting regulating apparatus configured for adjusting a connection of said respective elongated rack for positioning said received solar photovoltaic module selectively between a first height and a second height relative to the ground. As per the non-final rejection the reasoning that Marley discloses such feature remains – base bracket 502A and panel bracket 502B allow photovoltaic panel angle to be adjusted (col. 11, lines 23-28). If the angle of the panel is changed the height of the panel changes in as much as all but the pivot point is changing height. The claims do not require the entirety of the panel to change heights therefore the disclosure of a pivotal panel angle change arrangement would meet the claimed limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 13, 19-21, 24, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marley (US 8,544,221) in view of Ramos (US 2013/0232757).
Regarding claims 1-3, Marley (hereafter “D1”) discloses a ground mounting system (figure 1A/) for mounting solar photovoltaic panels (102) on a sloped surface (col. 4, lines 58-62), comprising: an array of soil fasteners (at pole 105 – figure 2A), inserted into said sloped surface, each one of said array of soil nails comprising a rigid rod (col. 5, lines 16-35, col. 7, lines 18-31); a plurality of adapting regulating apparatuses (cap 300, 103, yoke 500), positioned respectively on top of said array of soil nails (figures 3A/5A); and a plurality of elongated racks (support frames 600), respectively coupled with said array of soil nails via said plurality of regulating apparatuses (figure 6), configured for mounting said solar photovoltaic panels (703) (col. 11, lines 41-50) between at least a first height and a second height (base bracket 502A and panel bracket 502B allow panel angle to be adjusted – col. 11, lines 23-28).
D1 does not specifically disclose a geomembrane through which nails or support posts pass through. Marley teaches use where environmental impact is not critical (col. 5, lines 47-48). Marley teaches wherein persons skilled in the art may readily adapt dimensions to suit any particular need (col. 8, lines 20-22). Marley teaches use in heavy, compact soil or light, loose soil (col. 8, lines 33-35).
Ramos (hereafter “D2”) discloses a photovoltaic panel mounting system (figure 1) having nails/screws (68/69 – figure 8) which pass through a geomembrane (title; polymer liner 10 / 72). D2 discloses teaches use of mounting fasteners (68, 69) passing through a resilient washer (61 - polymer base - [0074]) above the geomembrane (72) (figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a geomembrane with support/nail/post openings (corresponding to poles/nails of D1) and resilient washers as taught by D2, for use with the system of D1 such as when utilized on a sloping surface to mitigate erosion.
Regarding claims 4-5, D1 as modified per the discussion of claim 2 discloses a mounting solar photovoltaic panels for use at a greenfield site (D1 discloses soil field), which would require for installation the steps of: laying a covering layer (from D2) on a greenfield ground surface; inserting soil fasteners through said covering layer inwardly into the greenfield ground (as taught in D2 at 68/69 – figure 9), creating an array of spaced soil fasteners (abstract – D1); installing regulating apparatus for interconnecting each respective soil fastener to a rail; mounting solar photovoltaic panels to the rails, adjusting the connection of a respective regulating apparatus to the respective rail for positioning said mounted solar photovoltaic panel selectively between a fist height and second height relative to the greenfield ground surface, said first height being lower than second height, whereby the soil fasteners support the solar photovoltaic panels for generating energy while resisting wind uplift loading. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to perform the claimed process steps, given D1 in view of D2, in order to necessarily make and use the combined device.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the discussions of claims 1-5 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the system of modified D1 in an arrangement for lower to the ground arrays with soil nails in said array of soil nails having a diameter ranging between 5 mm to 30 mm and length ranging between 0.5 meters to 2 meters and a height above the ground between 5-50 cm as D1 already discloses use on sloped surfaces and with loose soil. D2 does not discloses the thickness of the geomembrane, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select an optimal range when applying the feature to D1 with the thickness being in the range from 0.5 mm to 3 mm.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, D1 does not disclose comprising at least one helix flight attached to the elongated rod intermediate opposing ends thereof. D2 teaches helix arrangement at an engaging end (figure 9) of fasteners (68, 69). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add the helix flight taught in D2 to the rod/nail of D1 for ground engagement.
Regarding claim 10, D1 as modified discloses comprising a plate (106) attached proximate a driving end of the elongated rod (figure 2A – D1).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, D1 as modified discloses wherein the regulating apparatus comprises an annular sleeve (at 131) received by the soil fastener vertically spaced from the geomembrane, said annular sleeve having a laterally extending support plate (132) to which a rail connects for supporting a solar photovoltaic module (figure 2D – D1).
Regarding claim 21, 24, 26-27, D1 discloses wherein the regulating apparatus (300, 103, 500) comprises a threaded member (504) that receives a pair of nuts (not indexed – seen in figure 5a) thereon for adjusting the connection to the respective rack. D1 discloses mounting of a threaded member (504) with a pair of nuts and the process of tightening/loosening the nuts will alter the height of a supported solar panel to a degree.
Claim(s) 6-7, 12, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marley (US 8,544,221) in view of Ramos (US 2013/0232757) and Almy et al. (US 2021/0115642).
Regarding claims 6 and 12 and 22, D1 as modified by D2 does not specifically teach the step of printing an array of marks such as on the geomembrane.
Almy et al. teaches marking the locations for solar array anchors (240) by placing markers at installation points ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to apply marks to the geomembrane of D1 as suggested in D2 to locate the installation locations for the holes for the soil fasteners to pass through.
Regarding claim 7, D1 as modified discloses the holes in the geomembrane for the soil fasteners. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to create the holes by punching, a well-known process for easily making holes in a specific place in an object.
Claim(s) 11, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marley (US 8,544,221) in view of Ramos (US 2013/0232757) and Ehman et al. (US 2019/0222162).
D1 as modified by D2 does not disclose a sealant at geomembrane openings. Ehman et al. teaches a solar panel mounting system with geosynthetic ground cover (116) utilizing fasteners (122) and providing a sealant to prevent water infiltration at fastener locations ([0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to utilize a sealant as taught by Ehman et al. for the geomembrane rod openings to prevent undesired water infiltration.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights