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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 18: Line 12 of the claim, it appears the phrase “the piles the” should be --the piles to the-- for clarity of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 1 and 25-26: There appears to be inadequate support for electrical testing occurring only at the panel site (emphasis added). If applicant believes the subject matter is supported, it is requested applicant indicated where explicit support can be found for the claimed subject matter.
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 2-6 and 20-21 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.
With regard to claim 2: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it’s unclear if the step of “mechanically connecting the solar modules together at the field factory” is referencing the previously recited step of mechanically connecting, at the field factory, found in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the step of mechanically connecting, at the field factory, --. Lines 2-3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a plurality of solar modules” is referencing the previously recited solar modules. Lines 3 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a supporting structure” is referencing the previously recited one or more rails or clamps recited in claim 1. As described in par. [0037] of the original specification, a supporting structure is a skeleton structure, interchangeably termed a skeleton or a rail that is physically connected to the torque tubes. Lines 6-7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the step of “mechanically connecting, at the solar panel site,” is referencing the previously recited step of mechanically connecting, at solar panel site, found in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the step of mechanically connecting, at the solar panel site,--. Further, it’s unclear as to how the sub-string of solar modules are mechanically connected at solar panel site when claim 1 was amended to recite the sub-string of solar modules is mechanically connected to the one or more torque tubes at the field factory (emphasis added). Line 7 of the claim, the limitation “the torque tubes” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “at least one torque tube” is referencing the previously recited one or more torque tubes.
With regard to claim 3: Lines 1-2 and 5 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the sub-strings of solar modules” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the sub-string of solar modules--. Line 5 of the claim, limitation “the torque tubes” lack sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the one or more torque tubes--. Line 4-5 of the claim, it’s unclear as to how the sub-string of solar modules is to be placed on the one or more torque tubes at the solar panel site when claim 1 was amended to recite the sub-string of solar modules is mechanically connected to the one or more torque tubes at the field factory (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 4: Lines 1-3 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the sub-strings of solar modules” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the torque tubes” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to –the one or more torque tubes--. Line 4-5 of the claim, it’s unclear as to how the sub-string of solar modules is placed on the one or more torque tubes when claim 1 was amended to recite the sub-string of solar modules is mechanically connected to the one or more torque tubes at the field factory (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 5: Lines 1-3 and 6 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the sub-strings of solar modules” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the torque tubes” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to –the one or more torque tubes--.
With regard to claim 6: The claim recites testing at the field factory, which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1 recites testing only at the solar panel site (emphasis added).
With regard to claim 20: Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “the one or more of the solar modules” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 21: Lines 3 and 5 of the claim, the limitation “the solar module-torque tube-damper assembly combination” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the one or more solar module-torque tube-damper assembly combinations--.
Claims 2-6 and 20-21 are examined as best understood.
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) 1-2 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poivet (US 2020/0036325 A1) in view of Bitarchas et al. (US 2013/0167907 A1) and in further view of Campbell et al. (US 2024/0053061 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Poivet discloses a method of installing solar modules at a solar panel site, the method comprising:
forming a set of piles (5, 19) into a ground at the solar panel site (figs. 1 and 3; par. [0060]);
receiving, at a field factory locationally separate from the solar panel site, solar modules (4) (fig. 8; par. [0050]-[0051]);
mechanically connecting, at the field factory, the solar modules (4) together to form a string or a sub-string of solar modules (4) (fig. 8; par. [0051]);
transporting, from the field factory to the solar panel site, the string or sub-string of solar modules (4) (fig. 8; par. [0051]);
mechanically connecting, at the solar panel site, the string or sub-string of solar modules (4) to the piles (5 and 9) (figs. 1, 3 and 8-9);
electrically connecting, at the solar panel site, the string or sub-string of solar modules (4) to other strings of solar modules or other sub-strings of solar modules (via host structures’ cables 12) (par. [0050]), or to power electronics (power network or inverters) (par. [0051]); and
electrically testing, at the solar panel site, the electrical connections via connection to the power network (par. [0051] and [0117]), wherein the electrical connections are in the string of sub-string of solar modules.
Poivet does not disclose the solar panel site including driving the set of piles into a ground at the solar panel site.
However, Bitarchas et al. discloses a solar panel site comprising the driving of a pile (110) into the ground (fig. 1; par. [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Poivet to have each pile driven into the ground such taught by Bitarchas et al. in order to provide load transfer to stronger layers in the ground for a stable foundation.
Poivet further discloses mechanically connecting the solar modules (4) to one or more torque tubes (torque transmitting member/pipe 6) via one or more rails (7) and clamps (28) to form the one or more solar module-torque tube combinations (figs, 3, 8 and 13; par. [0049]). Poivet in view of Bitarchas et al. does not disclose the step of mechanically connecting takes place at the field factory.
However, Campbell et al. discloses mechanically connecting, at the field factory (prior to delivery), the solar modules (solar panels) to one or more torques tube to form one or more solar module-torque tube combinations (par. [0029] and [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Poivet previously modified Bitarchas et al. to include the step of mechanically connecting taking place at the field factory such as taught by Campbell et al. in order to provide a preassembled structure for ease of installation at the solar panel site.
With regard to claim 2: Poivet discloses the step of mechanically connecting, at the field factory, the solar modules (4) together comprises mechanically connecting the solar modules (4) to a skeleton structure (13 or deck frame, 26) including the one or more rails (7) and the clamps (28) (figs. 3 and 8; par. [0048]-[0050]);
wherein the plurality of solar modules (4) are electrically connected together to form a sub- string of solar modules (4) (par. [0117]).
With regard to claim 25: Poivet as modified by Bitarchas et al. and Campbell et al. would result in electrically connecting wiring for the one or more solar module-torque tube combinations; and wherein electrically testing the wiring for the one or more solar module-torque tube combinations is performed only at the solar panel site.
With regard to claim 26: Poivet as modified by Bitarchas et al. and Campbell et al. would result in the electrical connections comprising wiring between the one or more solar module-torque tube combinations; and wherein electrically testing the wiring between the one or more solar module-torque tube combinations is performed only at the solar panel site.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poivet (US 2020/0036325 A1) in view of Bitarchas et al. (US 2013/0167907 A1), Campbell et al. (US 2024/0053061 A1) and in further view of Di Stefano et al. (US 11,245,353 B2).
With regard to claim 3: Poivet discloses the sub-string of solar modules (4) are transported by truck (62A or 62B) from the field factory to the solar panel site (fig. 8; par. [0113]);
wherein the piles (5, 19) are formed in a line (fig. 8).
Poivet in view of Bitarchas et al. and Campbell et al. does not disclose that the truck drives to the solar panel site using a robotic arm connected to the truck to place the sub-string of solar modules onto the piles.
However, Di Stefano et al. discloses a discloses a truck (20) that drives to a solar panel site using a robotic (arm of manipulator robot, 24) connected to the truck (20) to place solar modules onto the piles (32) (figs. 3-6, 9-11 and 14-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Poivet previously modified by Bitarchas et al. to have the truck use a robotic arm connected to the truck to place the solar modules onto the piles such as taught by Di Stefano in order to provide an automated means that is convenient and efficient to aid in the installation of the solar modules. As modified, the one or more solar module-torque tube combinations are placed onto the piles.
Poivet in view Bitarchas et al. and Di Stefano et al. does not disclose that the piles are formed in lines; and wherein the truck drives in between the lines.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available means of creating a solar farm in which the robotic arm can access the array locations for installation of the solar modules. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the piles to be formed in lines; and wherein the truck drives in between the lines for ease of installation and accessibility. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 4: Poivet previously modified by Bitarchas et al., Campbell et al. and Di Stefano et al. discloses that the robotic arm moves the plurality of sub-strings of solar modules from the truck by physically grabbing the skeleton structure of the plurality of sub-strings of solar modules.
With regard to claim 5: Poivet previously modified by Bitarchas et al., Campbell et al. and Di Stefano et al. discloses a plurality of sub-strings of solar modules are connected to the torque tubes; and wherein the plurality of sub-strings of solar modules are electrically connected together to form a string of solar modules.
Poivet discloses electrically testing the electrical connections comprises electrically testing the electrical connections between the plurality of sub-strings of solar modules (fig. 8; par. [0051]; [0058]; and [0117]).
With regard to claim 6: Poivet discloses connecting and testing, at the field factory, sensor electronics (52) to the solar modules that form the string or the sub-string of solar modules (4) (par. [0051]; [0076]; and [0117]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 12, 13, 16-19, 22-24 and 27-29 allowed.
Claims 20-21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of all the steps of the claimed method of installing solar modules at a solar panel site, in particular attaching, at the solar panel site, at least one torque tube connector to the piles, wherein the at least one torque tube connector is configured to support one or more solar module-torque tube combinations from below; and connecting, at the solar panel site, the one or more solar module-torque tube combinations on top of the piles via the at least one torque tube connector in order to support the one or more solar module-torque tube combinations is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection of claims 5-6, 12-15 and 20-21 is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 3/5/26.
The previously rejection of claims 2-6, 14-15 and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 3/5/26.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 with respect to claims 1-6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Poivet teaches performing as much as possible locationally separate from the ultimate site. In particular, Applicant submits that Poivet is focused on wiring/testing away from the ultimate site (par. [0050]).
Examiner respectfully submits that par. [0117] of Poivet discloses that “In case of solar or electric or fluid based Upper Blocks, the necessary connections or tests, like electrical, electronic or fluids, can be performed on the ground, in the shop or on the truck before lifting, if labor is easier this way, in order to quickly deliver a finished Canopy Deck, or they can be performed once the Upper Blocks or some of their components are installed on the destination structure.”
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 JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights