DETAILED ACTION
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 3, 12, and 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.
Claims 3, 12, and 13, describe multiple part brackets that are capable of installing solar panels of different manufacturers are securing the brackets onto solar trackers of different manufacturers. Are these the same panels or trackers made by different manufacturers or is there an actual physical difference that would require a physically different configuration of the multiple part bracket. The claim language does not specifically address how the bracket is configured to be adaptable and specifically what it is adapting to Differing manufacturers mean a variety of possible shapes, sizes, and configurations. How is this bracket adaptable or configurable. Is it capable of changing size or being adjusted to fit, or do they merely provide a bracket of different size? The claim language doesn’t detail how it is specifically adapting or what it is adapting to. This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claim indefinite. An appropriate correction is required. The examiner notes that the number of different manufacturers is not a patentable distinct limitation. Products are commonly by different manufactures as a matter of commerce to meet demand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Watson et al. (U.S. 20190341878).
In re Claims 1 and 11, Watson teaches a multiple part bracket (100,200,300) is constructed, where the multiple part bracket is constructed to mechanically secure a first solar panel module (12) onto a solar tracker (14) as well as establish an electrical connection to a second solar panel module with the multiple part bracket. The solar panels (12) have side rails (12a) that are metal as are the brackets (100,200,300). The metal-to-metal contact provides grounding and is therefore capable of the functional limitation of “passing electrical power between the first and second panel modules for subsequent storage in one or more batteries”. The examiner further notes that the batteries have not been positively claimed. (Paragraphs 0028 and 0029; Figures 1-13)
The examiner notes that the autonomous ground vehicle with the robotic arm has not been positively claimed. Watson teaches all of the positively claimed limitations as has been previously noted. Therefore, the Watson multiple part bracket is capable of the functional limitation of “to be usable with an autonomous ground vehicle with a robotic arm for solar panel module installation in order to autonomously install the multiple part bracket onto a solar tracker with the robotic arm.” Again, the bracket is adjustable with components (102,106,301,303,501,503) and fasteners (107,302,502) clamping onto a solar tracker arm. The robotic arm has not been positively claimed; however, the structural limitations of the bracket allow for the functional limitation of mechanically clamping the bracket onto the tracker and tightening the fasteners by the robot arm.
In re Claims 2 and 12, Watson teaches that the multiple part bracket (100,200,300) is constructed with an upper portion (108,501) and a lower portion (106,503) to be assembled in a field. The solar modules are held in place by retainer assemblies (200,202,203,204,500,510,512,513,511) that are adjustable do to springs and threaded fasteners/bolts. (Figures 1-13)
The limitations “to be compatible with the first solar panel modules from multiple different manufactures having different configurations to be installed on the solar tracker” is functional language directed to the intended use of the product and is afforded only limited weight in a product claim. Solar modules are made from a variety of manufactures and physical differences, even slight one, can be expected from different solar panel manufactures. Using panels from different manufacturers allow for greater flexibility in procuring configuring solar panel arrays. The examiner notes that the limitations “different configurations” can mean almost anything including even slight variations in size, shape, or positioning of solar panels. The adjustable retainer assemblies and adjustable bracket components mean that the product is capable of being for the functions claimed.
In re Claims 3 and 13, Watson teaches a multiple part bracket is constructed to provide an electrical power connection and a mechanical attachment. The solar panels (12) have side rails (12a) that are metal as are the brackets (100,200,300). The metal-to-metal contact provides grounding and is therefore capable of the functional limitation of “passing electrical power between the first and second panel modules for subsequent storage in one or more batteries”. The examiner further notes that the batteries have not been positively claimed. The multiple part bracket includes an upper portion (101,102,501) of the multiple part bracket and a lower portion (106,503) of the multiple part bracket configured to be assembled together on an arm of a solar tracker in a field. The lower portion (106,503) are threaded at the top and slidably fit into holes in the upper portion (102,501) of the bracket. They are therefore capable/configured to be adaptable in shape and dimensions compatible with solar trackers (14) from two or more different manufacturers in order to mechanically capture and retain the first solar panel module on the arm. (Paragraphs 0028 and 0029; Figures 1-13)
The examiner notes that the manufacturer or even multiple of the invention is not a patentable distinct limitation. Products are commonly by different manufactures in order to produce enough of the product for the consumer.
In re Claims 6 and 16, Watson teaches that the lower portion (106,503) of the multiple part bracket is constructed to mate and connect to a same upper portion (108,501) of the multiple part bracket and use a same mechanical fastener (107,201,204,502,513) to secure the multiple part bracket onto the solar tracker of a particular manufacturer. (Figures 1-13)
The examiner notes that the manufacturer or even multiple of the invention is not a patentable distinct limitation. Products are commonly by different manufactures in order to produce enough of the product for the consumer.
In re Claims 9 and 19, Watson teaches that the upper portion of the multiple part bracket is constructed with an upper shaped section (102) and a top metal plate with two or more stamped slots in the top metal plate, where the upper shaped section and the top metal plate with the stamped slots are configured to mechanically couple with a lower shaped section in the lower portion of the multiple part bracket via a use of threaded rods, where the threaded rods in the lower shaped section are constructed to be inserted and torqued in place in a factory with at least one of i) nuts (107) and ii) threaded inserts so that the threaded rods can go up and through both the upper shaped section and then through the top metal plate when installed on the arm in a field. (Figure 7, Annotated Figure)
PNG
media_image1.png
787
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (U.S. 20190341878) in view of Korman et al (U.S. 20130039028)
In re Claims 4, 10, and 14, Watson has been previously discussed. Watson teaches the multiple part bracket is further constructed to use a mechanical fastener (107,201,204,502,513) in the bracket to secure to arm of the solar tracker via clamping, where the first solar panel module will connect to the multiple part backet to remain in place. Watson teaches upper portion (101,102,501). A clip bracket (201,202,203,204,500,510,511,512,513) is coupled to the upper portion. (Figures 1-13)
Watson does not teach the use a clip bracket containing electrical power circuitry with at least one of an electrical cord, a female electrical plug receptor, and an electrical clip to make an electrical connection to a second solar panel.
Korman et al teaches the use a clip bracket (14,16) containing electrical power circuitry with at least one of an electrical cord (20), a female electrical plug receptor (14), and an electrical clip to make an electrical power connection between a first and an adjacent second solar panel. A two-part connector that joins separate first and second solar panels together when the male plug (16) fits into the female receptor can be broadly considered a bracket.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Watson with the teachings of Korman. The Korman clip bracket allows for ease in integrating adjacent first and second solar modules into a common solar system. In the combination, having such electrical connections be waterproof is well known. The male plug is inserted into the female receptor while both are protected by an outer insulator, which is typical of such a connection. Otherwise, there would be a safety risk due to electric shock or electrical damage due to a short circuit.
With further regard to Claim 10, the limitations “to be usable with an autonomous ground vehicle with a robotic arm for installation of the first solar panel module in order to autonomously install the clip bracket onto a fixed axis solar tracker with the robotic arm, where the clip bracket is constructed to mechanically secure the first solar panel module onto the arm of the solar tracker as well as make an electrical connection to the second solar panel module are functional language directed to the intended use of the product and are therefore afforded only limited weight in a product claim. Furthermore, the bracket is adjustable with components (102,106,301,303,501,503) and fasteners (107,302,502) clamping onto a solar tracker arm. The autonomous ground vehicle with a robotic arm has not been positively claimed; however, the structural limitations of the bracket allow for the functional limitation of mechanically clamping the multipart bracket and first solar panel module in place onto the tracker and tightening the fasteners by the robot arm.
In re Claims 7 and 17, Watson, modified by Korman has been previously discussed. The combination teaches clip bracket (14,16). The examiner notes that multipart bracket (200), shown in Figures 10 and 11, includes a clip (512) that is disposed in a slot of the upper section of the multipart bracket. This clip (512) is located at the junction between first and second solar panels (12) in Watson just as the clip bracket (14,16) is located at the junction between first and second solar panels in Korman et al. Therefore, in the combination, a clip bracket incorporating both the teachings of Watson and Korman would result in a structurally stable male and female clip bracket that can insert into open slots in the upper portion of the multipart bracket. Since this meets all of the claimed physical limitations, this clip bracket is capable of the functional limitation of “containing the electrical connections used to electrically connect the first solar panel module and the second solar panel module electrically as well as provide an electrical grounding between the first solar panel module and the second solar panel module.” As was previously noted, having such electrical connections be waterproof is well known. The male plug is inserted into the female receptor while both are protected by an outer insulator, which is typical of such a connection. Otherwise, there would be a safety risk due to electric shock or electrical damage due to a short circuit.
In re Claims 8 and 18, Watson, modified by Korman has been previously discussed. In Watson, Figures 5, 6, and 7 clearly show sections/surfaces of the multipart bracket (100) extending between adjacent solar modules (12). Likewise, Figures 1, 2, 6-8 of Korman, shows clip bracket (14,16) also extending between adjacent first and second solar modules. Therefore, in Watson/Korman combination, it would have been obvious to incorporate the clip bracket (14,16) onto surfaces of an upper portion (101) so that the clip bracket is secured in place. This clip bracket connects first and second panels in the combination. In Watson, Figures 3, 5, 6, and 7 the multipart bracket (100) is shown to abut and connect the adjacent first and second solar panel modules (12). Therefore, the Watson/Korman combination teaches adjacent first and second solar panel modules joined together by the multiple part bracket with the clip bracket incorporated into the extension of the multiple part bracket.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (U.S. 20190341878).
In re Claim 5, Watson teaches that the lower portion (106,503) are threaded at the top and slidably fit into holes in the upper portion (101,102,501) of the bracket the lower portion (106,503), changing the cross sectional size and shape of the opening into which the arm of the solar tracker is placed. Therefore, the lower portion of the multiple part bracket is constructed to adapt its shape and dimensions to match a shape and dimensions of the arm of the solar tracker. The upper portion (101) of the multiple part bracket is constructed to mechanically clamp and snap into place with retainers (203,500,510,511.512,513) when mating to the first solar panel module to the upper portion of the bracket. (Figures 1-13)
Watson does not specifically teach solar trackers from two different manufactures or that the solar trackers differ in shape and dimension. However, as was noted the lower portion is adaptable to allow for the accommodation of different size and shaped solar trackers. However, having differing manufactures, especially where the sizes and shapes of the trackers differ, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. The examiner notes that the manufacturer or even multiple of the invention is not a patentable distinct limitation. A diversified manufacturing base allows competition and would assure a supply variety while keeping costs under control.
In re Claim 15, Watson teaches configuring the lower portion (503) of the multiple part bracket to adapt its shape and dimensions to match a shape and dimensions the arm of the solar tracker from that particular manufacturer. The lower portion (503) is threaded at the top and slidably fit into holes in the upper portion (501) of the bracket the lower portion (106,503), changing the cross sectional size and shape of the opening into which the arm of the solar tracker is placed. Therefore, the lower portion of the multiple part bracket is constructed to adapt its shape and dimensions to match a shape and dimensions of the arm of the solar tracker. An adapter portion (511,512) of a clip part bracket (510) is configured to snap fit into the multiple part bracket to mechanically clamp and snap into place when mating to the solar panel module (12) to the upper portion of the adapter portion of the clip bracket. (Paragraphs 0028 and 0029; Figures 1-13)
Watson does not specifically teach solar trackers from two different manufactures or that the solar trackers differ in shape and dimension. However, as was noted the lower portion is adaptable to allow for the accommodation of different size and shaped solar trackers. However, having differing manufactures, especially where the sizes and shapes of the trackers differ, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. A diversified manufacturing base allows competition and would assure a supply variety while keeping costs under control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the scope of the claims directed the adaptability of the bracket to solar trackers made by differing manufactures is not indefinite. We respectfully disagree. The claim language does not specifically address how the bracket is configured to be adaptable and specifically what it is adapting to differing manufacturers mean a variety of possible shapes, sizes, and configurations. How is this bracket adaptable or configurable. Is it capable of changing size or being adjusted to fit, or do they merely provide a bracket of different size? The claim language doesn’t detail how it is specifically adapting or what it is adapting to. This lack of clarity renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
The applicant argues that Watson and Korman do not teach a multiple part bracket constructed to allow for the functional limitation of mechanically clamping the bracket onto the tracker and tightening the fasteners by the robot arm. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner first notes that this is a functional limitation and that the robotic arm has not been positively claimed. The examiner maintains that since the claim meets the positively claimed structural limitations, it is capable of performing in the same manner as the claimed invention. The multi part bracket allows for the functional limitation of mechanically clamping the bracket onto the tracker and tightening the fasteners to the robot arm.
The applicant argues that the bracket described in the prior art is not a multi part bracket. Figures 7, 10, and 13 of the Watson reference show that the multipart brackets (100,200,300) have multiple constituent parts.
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 ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached on (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights