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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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.
Claim 43 is 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 43 recites the limitation "the at least three legs.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the at least three legs” will be interpreted as -the three legs- as amended in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “wherein each leg comprises at least one pivoting joint.” Claim 1 recites “the ends of two of the three legs that are distal to the mount are connected to the foundation via ball joints; and the distal end of one leg is connected to the foundation via a hinge joint.” Thus, claim 4 fails to further limit claim 1 from which it depends. Likewise, claim 38 recites wherein the apparatus is formed of a plurality of members which are fixed together.” Claim 1 recites “the ends of two of the three legs that are distal to the mount are connected to the foundation via ball joints.” Therefore, claim 38 fails to further limit claim 1 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 15-17, 19, 21, 29, 31, 33, 35, 38, 39, and 43 are Herzig (WO 2012072204 A1), hereinafter Herzig, in view of Young (US 20090050191 A1), hereinafter Young, and further in view of Noglotte (US 20120036800 A1), hereinafter Noglotte.
Regarding claims 1, 33, and 43, Herzig discloses an apparatus for solar tracking, the apparatus comprising:
a mount for a payload (“mirror 104 is arranged on a carrier 704” all citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference); and
three legs (Figures 3, 5, and 6) for supporting the mount above a foundation (“a foundation 105”);
wherein the three legs are connected to the mount to spread the load of the mount (Figures 3, 5, and 6);
wherein at least one of the three legs is arranged at a rear side of the mount, the rear edge of the mount being supported higher above the foundation than a front edge of the mount (Figure 3);
wherein two of the three legs (102) are arranged to extend between the front of the mount and one of the foundation (Figure 3);
wherein the two of the three legs are linearly actuable (“The device has two actuators 102 for moving the mirror 104… A fixed part of an actuator 102 is formed as a cylinder, in which a rod is guided as a movable part of the actuator 102. This allows an actuator 102 to perform a change in length along its main extension direction”) and wherein one of the legs is of fixed length (The rear leg) such that, in use, the mount is capable of pivoting about at least two axes relative to the foundation (“a two-axis accurate positioning”); and
wherein, in use, the ends of two of the three legs that are distal to the mount are connected to the foundation via ball joints (“The third bearing point 110 is connected to the foundation 105, here with the upper bearing surface of the foundation 105” and “A bearing point can thus represent a suitable joint connection between an actuator and the movable part and be, for example, a rotary joint, a universal joint or a ball joint”); and
the end of one leg is connected to the foundation (Figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
322
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
378
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
330
378
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Herzig does not disclose:
wherein the three legs are connected to the mount at edges of the mount, wherein at least one leg extends beyond the footprint of the mount;
wherein the foundation comprises a frame formed of members, wherein two of the three legs are arranged to extend to one of the connected members of the foundation, wherein the at least three legs are connected to the foundation at edges of the foundation;
the distal end of one leg is connected to the foundation via a hinge joint.
However, Young teaches:
wherein the three legs are connected to the mount at edges of the mount (“The universally pivoting joints, such as ball and socket joints, allow for pivoting between the coupled pieces in any direction. Joints 125 and 135 are located on opposite sides of module 110, and are mounted on the edge faces 150. Alternatively, linear actuators 120 and 130 may be located, for example, on adjacent edges 152 and 154, or may be mounted on the underside of solar module 110” paragraph [0019]. Figure 1 shows that 140 is additionally mounted at the edge), wherein at least one leg extends beyond the footprint of the mount (“it is also possible for the linear actuators 120 and 130 to have a wider base than the footprint of the module to provide increased resistance against wind loads” paragraph [0025]);
the distal end of one leg is connected to the foundation via a hinge joint (“The supports 120 and 140 in this embodiment are attached to a fixed ground surface with universally pivoting joints 127 and 147, respectively, while support arm 130 is coupled to ground with hinge joint 137” paragraph [0019]).
PNG
media_image5.png
410
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
320
426
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Young’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the three legs are connected to the mount at edges of the mount, wherein at least one leg extends beyond the footprint of the mount as is taught in Young, in the apparatus disclosed by Herzig because the edges of the mount represent a widened area which will improve stability (as a widened stance).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the distal end of one leg is connected to the foundation via a hinge joint as is taught in Young, in the apparatus disclosed by Herzig because including a joint at the connection of the non-actuating leg of Herzig will provide an additional degree of freedom. The examiner points out that the hinged joint of Young could alternatively be included instead of the hinged joint at the proximal end of the leg as in Herzig. This would produce the same degree of freedom and the court has held such reversals in movement to be an obvious modification In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Herzig, as modified by Young, does not disclose wherein the foundation comprises a frame formed of members, wherein two of the three legs are arranged to extend to one of the connected members of the foundation, wherein the at least three legs are connected to the foundation at edges of the foundation.
However, Noglotte teaches wherein the foundation comprises a frame formed of members (“holder 10 comprises, in one embodiment, a rigid metal support structure consisting of four metal bars” paragraph [0025]), wherein two of the three legs are arranged to extend to one of the connected members of the foundation, wherein the at least three legs are connected to the foundation at edges of the foundation (Figure 3).
PNG
media_image7.png
642
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Herzig does not disclose the claimed foundation. Noglotte teaches the claimed foundation. The substitution of one known element (the foundation of Herzig) for another (the foundation of Noglotte) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the foundation taught in Noglette would have yielded predictable results, namely, a foundation for supporting the solar tracking apparatus Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 2, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein, in use, the ends of the at least three legs distal to the mount are fixed such that the distal ends cannot translate relative to the foundation (The distal ends of the legs of Herzig pivot but do not translate relative to the foundation).
Regarding claim 4, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein each leg comprises at least one pivoting joint (110).
Regarding claim 7, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 4, wherein the three legs are connected to the mount via pivoting joints (110).
Regarding claim 8, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein at least some of the three legs are connected to the mount via ball joints (“A bearing point can thus represent a suitable joint connection between an actuator and the movable part and be, for example, a rotary joint, a universal joint or a ball joint”).
Regarding claim 15, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein one of the three legs comprises a plurality of hinge joints (“A bearing point can thus represent a suitable joint connection between an actuator and the movable part and be, for example, a rotary joint, a universal joint or a ball joint” the examiner notes that a universal joint comprises two perpendicular hinges. For example, see Bockhoff cited at the end of this action).
Regarding claim 16, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein one of the three legs comprises two hinge joints (“A bearing point can thus represent a suitable joint connection between an actuator and the movable part and be, for example, a rotary joint, a universal joint or a ball joint” the examiner notes that a universal joint comprises two perpendicular hinges. For example, see Bockhoff cited at the end of this action).
Regarding claim 17, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the two hinge joints comprise a first rotatable shaft and a second rotatable shaft respectively; wherein the first and second shafts are arranged such that the first shaft is perpendicular to the second shaft (“A bearing point can thus represent a suitable joint connection between an actuator and the movable part and be, for example, a rotary joint, a universal joint or a ball joint” the examiner notes that a universal joint comprises two perpendicular hinges. For example, see Bockhoff cited at the end of this action).
Regarding claim 19, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the linearly actuable legs are telescoping (“A fixed part of an actuator 102 is formed as a cylinder, in which a rod is guided as a movable part of the actuator 102. This allows an actuator 102 to perform a change in length along its main extension direction”).
Regarding claim 21, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising at least one actuator for actuating the linearly actuable legs (“A fixed part of an actuator 102 is formed as a cylinder, in which a rod is guided as a movable part of the actuator 102. This allows an actuator 102 to perform a change in length along its main extension direction”).
Regarding claim 29, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the at least three legs are arranged in a triangular formation on the mount (“Positions of the three bearings 110 form vertices of an imaginary triangle on the underside of the mirror 104”).
Regarding claim 31, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein all of the at least three legs are weight-bearing (The legs bear the weight of the mount and payload).
Regarding claim 35, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein, relative to the foundation, the mount is capable of:
pivoting about one of the legs;
pivoting about two axes; and/or
pitching thereby to track the elevation of the sun, and rolling thereby to track the azimuth of the sun (“a two-axis accurate positioning and tracking large areas or loads with little effort and low costs. Advantageously, by tracking the position of the sun by means of at least two actuators”).
Regarding claim 38, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the apparatus is formed of a plurality of members which are fixed together (See figures).
Regarding claim 39, Herzig, as modified by Young and Noglotte, discloses the system for solar tracking, comprising the apparatus of Claim 1; and
a solar panel supported as a payload on the mount (“A solar panel 104 can thus be pivoted according to the position of the sun”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bockhoff (US 1143596 A) “A universal joint, comprising a central member, two bifurcated shaft members spanning said central member and pivoted thereto on perpendicular intersecting axes”
PNG
media_image8.png
260
660
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Xue (CN 101403926 A)
PNG
media_image9.png
396
436
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Liu (CN 201909997 U)
PNG
media_image10.png
412
452
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Huang (CN 201936192 U)
PNG
media_image11.png
518
426
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Sommer (US 4172443 A)
PNG
media_image12.png
741
580
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Zitzelsberger (US 4283588 A)
PNG
media_image13.png
327
319
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
401
284
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Jungbluth (DE 102009048855 A1)
PNG
media_image15.png
352
514
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Thor (US 5980052 A)
PNG
media_image16.png
728
420
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Gross (US 20050034751 A1)
PNG
media_image17.png
761
418
media_image17.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762