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 .
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 5, 9-10, and 12-13 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.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites, “the stop plate”, and in the preceding claim 4 recites, “a stop plate of the pair of stop plates”. Its unclear if the recitation of “stop plate” in claim 5 is referencing back to the same stop plate or a different stop plate, or if Applicant is limiting the pair of stop plates to both comprise these elements. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “bent plates”, while previously reciting “a bent plate”, and “the bent plate”. Its unclear if the last recitation is referencing back to the same bent plate or if different bent plates are being introduced.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “a second rotating shaft”, “a third part and a fourth part”. This claim depends from claim 7 where there are no recitations of “a first rotating shaft”, or “a first part and a second part”, thus its unclear if this claim was intended to depend on claim 8, or even if “a first rotating shaft”, or “a first part and a second part” are required by claim 10. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 12, Applicant recites, “a first longitudinal beam” and “a second longitudinal beam”, while previously reciting in claim 11, “at least two longitudinal beams”. Its unclear if the first and second longitudinal beams correspond to the at least two longitudinal beams or if these are different distinct longitudinal beams. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 13, Applicant recites, “a first longitudinal beam” and “a second longitudinal beam”, while previously reciting in claim 11, “at least two longitudinal beams”. Its unclear if the first and second longitudinal beams correspond to the at least two longitudinal beams or if these are different distinct longitudinal beams. Appropriate action is required.
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 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen et al. (US 2025/0088143 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Shen et al. discloses a pre-assembled photovoltaic system (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a foldable support (Figs. 2-4, #11 & Paragraph 0051);
a plurality of photovoltaic modules connected to the foldable support (Figs. 2-4, #13 & Paragraph 0053); and
a limiting device connected to the foldable support, wherein the limiting device is configured to control one or more unfolding angles of the foldable support (Fig. 5, #121 & Paragraph 0074).
In view of Claim 19, Shen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Shen et al. discloses that the limiting device comprises a steel wire (Fig. 5, #121 & Paragraph 0074).
In view of Claim 20, Shen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Shen et al. discloses that when the foldable support is in a closed position a size of the pre-assembled photovoltaic system as adapted to a container (Fig. 1, #4).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2025/0088143 A1) in view of Chi (CN-116996003-A). Chi is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 2, Shen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Shen et al. does not disclose that the foldable support comprises a plurality of limit plates arranged on the foldable support along an unfolding direction of the foldable support and wherein when the foldable support is unfolded to a preset angle adjacent limits plates on the plurality of limits plates are configured toa but against each other to prevent the foldable support from further unfolding.
Chi discloses a foldable support that comprises a plurality of limit plates arranged on the foldable support along an unfolding direction of the foldable support and wherein when the foldable support is unfolded to a preset angle adjacent limits plates on the plurality of limits plates are configured toa but against each other to prevent the foldable support from further unfolding (Figs. 1-4, #124 – Page 4, Paragraphs 8-9). Chi discloses that a rotating substructure cause adjacent solar panels to be prone to interference and collision when folded and thus causing damage, thus there is a need for improvement (Page 1, Background technique). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the foldable support comprises a plurality of limit plates arranged on the foldable support along an unfolding direction of the foldable support and wherein when the foldable support is unfolded to a preset angle adjacent limits plates on the plurality of limits plates are configured toa but against each other to prevent the foldable support from further unfolding for the advantages of preventing interference between adjacent solar cells and thus preventing damage/collision.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2025/0088143 A1) in view of Albertella (US 2019/0006984 A1).
In view of Claim 3, Shen is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Shen does not teach at least one pair of cross beams arranged along an unfolding direction of the foldable support and a support unit hinged between a pair of cross beams of the at least one pair of cross beams.
Albertella discloses at least one pair of cross beams arranged along an unfolding direction of the foldable support (Fig. 33, #820/#822 & Paragraph 0121) with a support unit hinged between a pair of cross beams of the at least one pair of cross beams (Fig. 33, #850 & Paragraph 0123). Albertella discloses that the disclosure enables PV panels to be easily put in service and to be easily removed from Servia via a supporting structure which is reliable and safe in operation (Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have at least one pair of cross beams arranged along an unfolding direction of the foldable support and a support unit hinged between a pair of cross beams of the at least one pair of cross beams for the advantage of enabling PV panels to be easily put in service and to be easily removed from Servia via a supporting structure which is reliable and safe in operation.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2025/0088143 A1) in view of Korman et al. (US 2011/0253193 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Shen et al. discloses a pre-assembled photovoltaic system (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic modules connected to the foldable support (Figs. 2-4, #13 & Paragraph 0053); and
a limiting device connected to the foldable support, wherein the limiting device is configured to control one or more unfolding angles of the foldable support (Fig. 5, #121 & Paragraph 0074).
Shen et al. does not disclose a foldable support.
Korman et al. discloses a foldable support (Figs. 5a-c, #301 & Paragraph 0039). Korman et al. discloses that this system obviates an expensive racking system and thus results in a lowest installed cost (Paragraph 0010 & 0012). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to utilize the foldable support of Korman et al. in Shen et al. PV system for the advantage of utilizing a configuration that results in a lowest installed cost.
In view of Claim 3, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Shen et al. teaches a support unit hinged between a pair of PV modules (Figs. 1-4, #11) while Korman et al. teaches that the foldable support further comprises a pair of cross beams arranged along an unfolding direction of the foldable support (See Annotated Korman et al. Fig. 5b, below & See Fig. 4, as this “cross-beam” is located in each “valley” between adjacent PV modules). The combination of Shen et al. with Korman et al. would result in the limitation of the support unit hinged between the pair of cross beams.
Annotated Korman et al. Fig. 5b
PNG
media_image1.png
356
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 4, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Korman et al. discloses a pair of stop plates disposed at a bottom of the pair of cross beams, and when the foldable support is unfolded a stop plate of the pair of stop plates is configured to prevent a corresponding cross beam of the pair of cross beams from flipping and when the foldable support is in a closed position the pair of stop plates are configured to abut against each other (See Annotated Korman et al. Fig. 5b, below).
Annotated Korman et al. Fig. 5b
PNG
media_image2.png
620
830
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 6, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Modified Shen et al. discloses a first support element, wherein a first end of the first support element is hinged to a first cross beam of the pair of cross beams and a second support element wherein a first end of the second support element is hinged to a second cross beam of the pair of cross beams and a second end of the second support element is hinged to a second end of the first support element, wherein the plurality of PV modules comprise at least one first PV module connected to the first support element and at least one second PV module connected to the second support element (See Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 2, below).
Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
490
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 7, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Shen et al. discloses a first hinge connected between the first support element and the second support element (Fig. 7, #14 & Paragraph 0054). Korman et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to have a first one of two second hinges connected between the first support element and the first cross beam (See Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 2, above), and a second one of the two second hinges connected between the second support element and the second cross beam (See Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 2, below).
Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
490
804
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 10, as best understood by the Examiner, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Korman et al. teaches a second hinge of the two second hinges comprises a second rotating shaft and a third part and a fourth part that are sleeved over the second rotating shaft (its noted that these hinges would have to be sleeved over the pin in the center hinge or the hinge would be inoperable), wherein the third part is connected to a corresponding one of the first support element and the second support element and the fourth part is connected to a corresponding cross beam of the pair of cross beams and the second hinge comprises a limit part in the third and fourth part that when the foldable support is a closed position the third and fourth part abut against each other through the limit part (See Annotated Korman et al. Fig. 5b, below).
Annotated Korman et al. Fig. 5b
PNG
media_image5.png
609
647
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 11, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Shen et al. teaches that the first support element and the second support element comprise at least two longitudinal beams and at least two transverse purlins respectively, wherein the at least two longitudinal beams and the at least two transverse purlins are connected perpendicularly or crosswise to form grid frames and at least one first and second PV module are fixed to the grid frames (Figs. 3-4, #11, #13 & #17 – Paragraph 0051, 0053, and 0057).
In view of Claim 13, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Shen et al. discloses a position of a first longitudinal beam of the first support element is misaligned with a position of a second longitudinal beam of the second support element (See Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 4, below).
Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 4
PNG
media_image6.png
512
800
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 14, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Shen et al. teaches that the limiting device is connected to a longitudinal beam of the at least two longitudinal beams (Figs. 4-6, #121 & Paragraph 0100) and that a connection position between the limiting device and the longitudinal beam is a target position, a distance between the target position and a corresponding cross beam is a target distance , and a ratio between the target distance and a total length of the longitudinal beam is greater or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 2/3 (See Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 5, below).
Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 5
PNG
media_image7.png
441
903
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 15, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Shen et al. teaches that the limiting device is disposed between the first support element and the second support element and the limiting device is connected to each of the first support element and the second support element (See Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 2, #21 above & Paragraph 0100), and the foldable support in an unfolded position can include can angle between the first support element and the limiting device in a range from 0-15 degrees (Paragraph 0012).
In view of Claim 16, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Korman et al. teaches a cross beam of the at least one pair of cross beams is connected to a mounting platform by being mounted on the mounting platform through a fastener (Figs. 5a-c, #315 attached to #308 – Paragraph 0045).
In view of Claim 19, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Shen et al. discloses that the limiting device comprises a steel wire (Fig. 5, #121 & Paragraph 0074).
In view of Claim 20, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Shen et al. discloses that when the foldable support is in a closed position a size of the pre-assembled photovoltaic system as adapted to a container (Fig. 1, #4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2025/0088143 A1) in view of Korman et al. (US 2011/0253193 A1) in view of Gibb et al. (US 2025/0167724).
In view of Claim 12, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Shen et al. discloses the first support element comprises a first longitudinal beam and the second support element comprises a second longitudinal beam (See Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 4, below) but does not disclose that one of the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam has an open end, and the open end faces a side away from a corresponding photovoltaic module and a width of one of the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam having the open end is greater than a width of the other one of the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam.
Annotated Shen et al. Fig. 4
PNG
media_image8.png
741
913
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Gibb et al. discloses that one of the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam has an open end, and the open end faces a side away from a corresponding photovoltaic module and a width of one of the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam having the open end is greater than a width of the other one of the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam (See Fig. 4, the longitudinal beams have open ends that face a side away from the corresponding PV module (Fig. 4, #441 the forks form the “open end), wherein the widths of one of these beams (which correspond to first or second longitudinal beams) have open ends that are greater than the width of the other beam (Fig. 4, #442 is nested inside #441 – Paragraph 0045). Gibb et al. teaches that the implementations of his disclosure are less expensive and easier to fabricate in a shorter time (Paragraph 0024). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have one of the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam has an open end, and the open end faces a side away from a corresponding photovoltaic module and a width of one of the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam having the open end is greater than a width of the other one of the first longitudinal beam and the second longitudinal beam in modified Shen et al. configuration for the advantages of less cost and easier fabrication.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2025/0088143 A1) in view of Korman et al. (US 2011/0253193 A1) in view of Wolter et al. (US 2014/0069483 A1).
In view of Claim 17, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Korman et al. does not disclose clump weight disposed at two ends of a cross beam of the at least one pair of cross beams, the cross beam connected to the clump weights and the clump weights connected to a mounting platform, wherein the cross beam and the clump weights are connected by at least one of: the cross beam being directly mounted on the clump weights through fasteners, the cross beam being connected to pre-buried pieces disposed in the clump weights through fasteners or a hoop of the pre-assembled photovoltaic system bypassing the cross beam and being connected tot eh clump weights through fasteners but does disclose a mounting platform disposed at two ends of a cross beam, the cross beams connected to the mounting platform through fasteners (Figs. 5-6, #308).
Wolter et al. discloses a mounting platform wherein each mounting platform is mounted onto a clump weight (Fig. 4, #50 connected and bolted to ballast #31 – Paragraph 0036 & Fig. 20). Wolter et al. discloses that by using a ballasted block support that it can be engineered and designed to stably support a particular solar system including being sufficiently stable to meet expected wind or seismic loading of a given location (Paragraph 0038). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cross beam of Korman et al. which is connected to the mounting plate connected to the pre-buried pieces disposed on the clump weights through fasteners as disclosed by Wolter et al. for the advantage of having a system that can be engineered and designed to stably support a particular solar system including being sufficiently stable to meet expected wind or seismic loading of a given location.
In view of Claim 18, Shen et al. and Korman et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Korman et al. discloses that at two ends of the pre-assembled PV system along the unfolding direction of the foldable support that there are mounting plates (Fig. 6, #308) that comprises a limit slot configured to limit a corresponding cross beam of the at least one pair of cross beams (Figs. 5a-d, the cross member extends into the slots 310 and is limited via 313/315).
Wolter et al. discloses a mounting platform wherein each mounting platform is mounted onto a clump weight (Fig. 4, #50 connected and bolted to ballast #31 – Paragraph 0036 & Fig. 20). Wolter et al. discloses that by using a ballasted block support that it can be engineered and designed to stably support a particular solar system including being sufficiently stable to meet expected wind or seismic loading of a given location (Paragraph 0038). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cross beam of Korman et al. which is connected to the mounting plate connected to the clump weights through fasteners as disclosed by Wolter et al. for the advantage of having a system that can be engineered and designed to stably support a particular solar system including being sufficiently stable to meet expected wind or seismic loading of a given location. Its noted that the entirety assembly of a mounting plate disposed on a clump weight is now considered as a whole “clump weights”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 & 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights