Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/268,948

Frames for Photovoltaic Modules and Mounting Features

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 14, 2025
Examiner
WUJCIAK, ALFRED J
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Enstall US Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
869 granted / 1167 resolved
+22.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1196
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§102
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1167 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 for the serial number 19/268,948, FRAMES FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULES AND MOUNTING FEATURES, filed on 7/14/25. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of species 24 in the reply filed on 2/3/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there would be no serious search and/or examination burden to examine all species simultaneously and the different species are improperly identified because each species should at least include one of the frames shown in Figures 1-4, 8 and 114-116”. This is not found persuasive because there are plurality different designs of frame which put a serious burden on examiner to search outside of his art unit and the figures 1-4, 8 and 114-116 are not identical since they show different shape and design of the frame. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 23 and 25 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 23 recites the limitation "the first portion of the solar panel mounting element" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 recites the limitation "the first portion of the solar panel mounting element" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claims 21-26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2018/0226918 to De Vogel et al. De Vogel et al. teaches a frame (1) for a module. The frame includes a curved outer surface (2) connected to a mounting surface (20), a cavity (4) in the frame for connecting a first portion of a mounting component (25). The frame includes a base portion (10) comprising an outer lip and the bottom surface. The base portion includes at least one leg (11) extending from the base portion, and wherein the outer lip and the at least one leg define the cavity. The base portion of the frame comprises an opening. The curved outer surface extends from the bottom surface of the base portion proximate to the opening. The frame further comprises a panel support portion (13b) extending from the at least one leg. Wherein the frame has a length extending from the bottom surface to an uppermost surface of the panel support portion. Wherein the outer lip has a length extending from the bottom surface extending to the distal end of the outer lip. De Vogel et al. teaches all of the elements above but fails to teach the use of elements with rotating and tiliting in method, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified steps for installing the elements on the module to prevent from damaging the module if it is connected to the frame properly. De Vogel et al. teaches the length of the outer lip and the frame but fails to teach the length of the outer lip is 20-40% of the length of the frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the outer lip to 20-40% of the length of the frame to provide designer’s preference for the length of the outer lip. PNG media_image1.png 642 719 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 544 708 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 744 754 media_image3.png Greyscale Allowable Subject Matter Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 31-50 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 27, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations from independent claim 21, dependent claims 24 and 26 and including the dependent claim 27 with “wherein the mounting component is a mid clamp or an end clamp”. Regarding claim 31, the prior arts fail to teach all of the limitations especially with “a panel support portion configured to support a solar panel.” Regarding claim 43, the prior art fails to teach all of the limitations especially with “moving the photovoltaic module, with the mounting lip aligned with the frame cavity”. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Patent Application Publication # 2022/0302872 to Patton et al. Patton et al. teaches the frame for supporting the solar panels. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED J WUJCIAK whose telephone number is (571)272-6827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3:30pm. 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, David Dunn can be reached at 571 272 6670. 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. ALFRED J. WUJCIAK Examiner Art Unit 3632 /ALFRED J WUJCIAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636 2/19/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601191
PROP-BRACE COUPLER FOR CONSTRUCTION PLATFORM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587132
PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE CLAMP ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571342
Engine-Generator Set
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571497
MOUNTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571495
DISPLAY MOUNTING SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1167 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month