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 Amendment
The amendment filed 6/8/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Lin are revised to incorporate new claim limitations.
The other art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
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 63, 64, 68, 71, 72, and 74 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 63 recites that a step is comprised within the pocket region, and claim 64 recites that the step comprises an end of the framework material from the rounded top lip edge. This limitation seems to be that shown in at least instant Figures 6, 7A-7K, 7N, 7O, 7Q-7S, 7U, 7W-7AA, 7CC, 7LL-7OO, 9-12, 15, and 16. From these detailed figures, a skilled artisan would understand that a step arises from an end of the single piece of framework being located within the pocket region. However, claim 61, from which claims 63 and 64 depend, recites “wherein the bottom flange comprises a first layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the frame sidewall, a second layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the support wall, and a reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers”. This limitation seems to be shown in instant Figures 7L, 7P, 7T, 7KK, and 8. From these detailed figures, a skilled artisan would understand that such a reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers arises when an end of the single piece of framework is located near the bottom flange. In other words, the limitations recited in claims 63 and 64 are mutually exclusive from the reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers. Therefore, those claims are indefinite, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to achieve those limitations together.
Claim 68 recites that the rounded top lip edge comprises at least three layers of framework material. This limitation seems to be that shown in at least instant Figures 7X, 7LL, 7NN, and 7OO. From these detailed figures, a skilled artisan would understand that an edge comprising three layers of framework material arises from an end of the single piece of framework being located within the pocket region. However, claim 61, from which claim 68 depends, recites “wherein the bottom flange comprises a first layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the frame sidewall, a second layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the support wall, and a reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers”. This limitation seems to be shown in instant Figures 7L, 7P, 7T, 7KK, and 8. From these detailed figures, a skilled artisan would understand that such a reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers arises when an end of the single piece of framework is located near the bottom flange. In other words, the limitations recited in claim 68 are mutually exclusive from the reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers. Therefore, that claim is indefinite, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to achieve those limitations together.
Claim 71 recites that a step is comprised within the pocket region, and claim 72 recites that the step comprises an end of the framework material from the rounded lower shelf edge. This limitation seems to be that shown in at least instant Figures 7C, 7N, 10A, 12, 14B, 14C, 15, and 16. From these detailed figures, a skilled artisan would understand that a step arises from an end of the single piece of framework being located within the pocket region. However, claim 69, from which claim 70 and 71 depend, recites “wherein the bottom flange comprises a first layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the frame sidewall, a second layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the support wall, and a reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers”. This limitation seems to be shown in instant Figures 7L, 7P, 7T, 7KK, and 8. From these detailed figures, a skilled artisan would understand that such a reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers arises when an end of the single piece of framework is located near the bottom flange. In other words, the limitations recited in claims 71 and 72 are mutually exclusive from the reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers. Therefore, those claims are indefinite, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to achieve those limitations together.
Claim 74 recites that the rounded lower shelf edge comprises at least three layers of framework material. This limitation seems to be that shown in at least instant Figures 7C, 7F, 7J, 7K, 7N, 10A, 12, 14C, 15, and 16. From these detailed figures, a skilled artisan would understand that an edge comprising three layers of framework material arises from an end of the single piece of framework being located within the pocket region. However, claim 69, from which claim 74 depends, recites “wherein the bottom flange comprises a first layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the frame sidewall, a second layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the support wall, and a reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers”. This limitation seems to be shown in instant Figures 7L, 7P, 7T, 7KK, and 8. From these detailed figures, a skilled artisan would understand that such a reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers arises when an end of the single piece of framework is located near the bottom flange. In other words, the limitations recited in claim 74 are mutually exclusive from the reversing flange fold that overlays the first and second layers. Therefore, that claim is indefinite, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to achieve those limitations together.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 52-60, 69, 70, 73, and 75-77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2021/036273A1 to Lin (machine translation relied upon herein, both of record).
Regarding claims 52-60, Lin teaches a frame for at least partially enclosing or supporting a solar panel 8, the frame comprising at least a first frame section (see Marked-up Fig. 1 below), the first frame section comprising
A bottom flange at a base of the frame section (p. 5 of translation)
A frame sidewall of the frame section, the frame sidewall characterized by a height extending from the bottom flange
A panel containment structure 14 at an upper portion of the frame sidewall, the panel containment structure comprising a lower shelf 112 extending from the frame sidewall
A support wall at an inner portion of the frame section
Wherein the bottom flange, frame sidewall, panel containment structure, and support wall are formed at least in part from folds provided in a single piece of framework material (top p. 3 of translation)
Wherein the bottom flange comprises a first layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the frame sidewall (overlaid by dotted black line in Marked-up Fig. 1), a second layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the support wall (overlaid by dotted grey line), and a reversing flange fold (solid black doodle) that overlays the first and second layers.
[AltContent: textbox (Rounded lower shelf edge)][AltContent: textbox (Top lip edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lengthwise fold)][AltContent: textbox (Support wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Frame sidewall)][AltContent: textbox (Bottom flange)]
PNG
media_image1.png
264
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claims 53, 54, and 58, the panel containment structure comprises a pocket wall (solid grey lines) extending from the lower shelf 112.
The pocket wall is at an outermost portion of the frame section.
The panel containment structure further comprises a top lip (curved element) intersecting an upper portion of the pocket wall, thereby forming a pocket region for receiving the panel 8, the pocket region defined by the lower shelf, the pocket wall, and the top lip.
Per claim 55, the first layer extends from the frame sidewall in a first direction (left-right in Fig. 1) a first length, and wherein the second layer extends from the support wall in the first direction a second length that is less than the first length (MPEP §2125).
Per claims 56 and 57, the lower shelf outwardly extends from the frame sidewall.
An end of the lower shelf is at an outermost portion of the frame section.
Per claim 59, the frame further comprises a lengthwise fold (identified in Marked-up Fig. 1 above, fold extends into and out of the page) defining an intersection of the frame sidewall with the bottom flange.
Per claim 60, at least a portion of the bottom flange, frame sidewall, panel containment structure, lower shelf, or support wall comprises at least two layers of framework material.
Regarding claims 69, 70, and 73, Lin teaches a frame for at least partially enclosing or supporting a solar panel 8, the frame comprising at least a first frame section (see Marked-up Fig. 1 above), the first frame section comprising
A bottom flange at a base of the frame section (p. 5 of translation)
A frame sidewall at an outer portion of the frame section, the frame sidewall characterized by a height extending from the bottom flange
A panel containment structure 14 at an upper portion of the frame sidewall, the panel containment structure comprising a lower shelf 112 extending from the frame sidewall, a pocket wall (overlaid by solid grey lines in Marked-up Fig. 1 above) extending from the lower shelf, and a top lip (curved portion) intersecting an upper portion of the pocket wall, thereby forming a pocket region for receiving the panel 8, the pocket region defined by the lower shelf, the pocket wall, and the top lip
A rounded lower shelf edge that extends only part of the way back to the pocket wall
A support wall at an inner portion of the frame section
Wherein the bottom flange, frame sidewall, panel containment structure, and support wall are formed at least in part from folds provided in a single piece of framework material (top p. 3 of translation)
Wherein the bottom flange comprises a first layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the frame sidewall (overlaid by dotted black line in Marked-up Fig. 1), a second layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the support wall (overlaid by dotted grey line), and a reversing flange fold (solid black doodle) that overlays the first and second layers.
Per claim 70, the rounded lower shelf edge comprises a fold at an inward end of the lower shelf (MPEP §2125).
Per claim 73, the rounded lower shelf edge comprises at least two layers of framework material.
Regarding claims 75-77, Lin teaches a frame for at least partially enclosing or supporting a solar panel 8, the frame comprising at least a first frame section (see Marked-up Fig. 1 above), the first frame section comprising
A bottom flange at a base of the frame section (p. 5 of translation)
A frame sidewall at an outer portion of the frame section, the frame sidewall characterized by a height extending from the bottom flange
A panel containment structure 14 at an upper portion of the frame sidewall, the panel containment structure comprising a lower shelf 112 extending from the frame sidewall, a pocket wall (overlaid by solid grey lines in Marked-up Fig. 1 above) extending from the lower shelf, and a top lip (curved portion) intersecting an upper portion of the pocket wall, thereby forming a pocket region for receiving the panel 8, the pocket region defined by the lower shelf, the pocket wall, and the top lip
A support wall at an inner portion of the frame section
Wherein the bottom flange, frame sidewall, panel containment structure, and support wall are formed at least in part from folds provided in a single piece of framework material (top p. 3 of translation)
Wherein the bottom flange comprises a first layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the frame sidewall (overlaid by dotted black line in Marked-up Fig. 1), a second layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the support wall (overlaid by dotted grey line), and a reversing flange fold (solid black doodle) that overlays the first and second layers.
Per claim 76, the reversing flange fold comprises a rounded edge of the bottom flange at a free end of the bottom flange (MPEP §2125).
Per claim 77, the second layer directly overlays the first layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 61-63 and 65-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
Regarding claims 61-63 and 65-68, Lin teaches a frame for at least partially enclosing or supporting a solar panel 8, the frame comprising at least a first frame section (see Marked-up Fig. 1 above), the first frame section comprising
A bottom flange at a base of the frame section (p. 5 of translation)
A frame sidewall at an outer portion of the frame section, the frame sidewall characterized by a height extending from the bottom flange
A panel containment structure 14 at an upper portion of the frame sidewall, the panel containment structure comprising a lower shelf 112 extending from the frame sidewall, a pocket wall (overlaid with solid grey lines) extending from the lower shelf, and a top lip (curved portion) intersecting an upper portion of the pocket wall, thereby forming a pocket region for receiving the panel 8, the pocket region defined by the lower shelf, the pocket wall, and the top lip
A top lip edge of the top lip
A support wall at an inner portion of the frame section
Wherein the bottom flange, frame sidewall, panel containment structure, and support wall are formed at least in part from folds provided in a single piece of framework material (top p. 3 of translation)
Wherein the bottom flange comprises a first layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the frame sidewall (overlaid by dotted black line in Marked-up Fig. 1), a second layer of the single piece of framework material that extends from the support wall (overlaid by dotted grey line), and a reversing flange fold (solid black doodle) that overlays the first and second layers.
The top lip edge identified in Marked-up Fig. 1 is a terminal portion of the top lip that curves downward toward the panel 8. The top lip edge is not illustrated as a rounded top lip edge that extends only part way back to the pocket wall. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the top lip edge to have such structure, as such structure is a clear alternative to a top lip that curves downward toward the panel (Fig. 2 shows a top lip, labeled 23, that is parallel to the lower shelf except at its edge, which is rounded and bent toward panel 8; the intersection between the top lip edge and the parallel portion of the top lip of modified-Lin is away from the pocket wall).
Per claim 62, the rounded top lip edge comprises a fold at an inward end of the top lip (the upper layer of the top lip edge has been folded over on top of the lower layer).
Per claim 63, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to comprise within the pocket region a step because it would have merely required a change in shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Per claims 65-67, the rounded top lip edge comprises at least two layers of framework material (see Figs. 1, 2; MPEP §2125).
The at least two layers of frame material of the rounded top lip edge are parallel to each other (the layers of frame material that form the top lip edge both bend toward panel 8 as in Fig. 2 at the same angle).
One of the at least two layers of framework material of the rounded top lip edge is bent with respect to the other of the at least two layers of framework material (the upper layer of the rounded top lip edge in Fig. 2 has been bend 180o with respect to the lower layer of the edge).
Per claim 68, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to comprise at least three layers of framework material within the rounded top lip edge because such a modification is suggested by the reference (p. 3 of translation: “Wherein, the vertical frame, the top frame, and the bottom frame are all rolled to form at least a two-layer structure.” (emphasis added)).
Claim(s) 71 and 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 69 above.
Regarding claim 71, Lin teaches the limitations of claim 69. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to comprise within the pocket region a step because it would have merely required a change in shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 74, Lin teaches the limitations of claim 69. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to comprise at least three layers of framework material within the rounded lower shelf edge because such a modification is suggested by the reference (p. 3 of translation: “Wherein, the vertical frame, the top frame, and the bottom frame are all rolled to form at least a two-layer structure.” (emphasis added)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 52-77 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Although the prior art reference relied upon in the rejections above was previously made of record, the reasoning is new.
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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights