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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 6/5/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claim 7 is canceled. Currently, claims 1 and 9-13 are pending in the application.
Previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 1 and 9-13 are rejected on a new ground of rejection. See the rejection below.
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 1 and 9-13 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.
The claim language is inconsistent. It is required to be changed. Below is a non-limiting list of indefinite issues.
As amended, claim 1 recites “the frame” in lines 16-18. It is unclear what “the frame” is being referred to, as there are “a frame” recited in lines 13-14 and “each frame” recited in line 16.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the frames” (emphasis added) in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “each secondary tube” in line 5 and “each secondary tube” in line 13. It is unclear if “each secondary tube” recited in line 13 is the same as or different from “each secondary tube” recited in line 5. In addition, it is unclear if “each secondary tube” is the same as or different from “a plurality of secondary profiles or tubes” (emphasis added) recited in line 5.
Claim 1 recites “said main tube” in line 6, “the main tube” throughout the claim. It is unclear if “said main tube” and “the main tube” is the same as or different from “a profile or main tube” in line 4.
Claim 1 recites “the secondary tubes” throughout the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the secondary tubes” recited in lines 9-12 are the same as or different from “a plurality of secondary profiles or tubes” recited in line 5.
As amended, claim 1 recites the limitation “the rods or inclined profiles” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear if “the rods or inclined profiles” recited in line 18 is the same as or different from “two rods or inclined profiles” recited in lines 14-15.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least one bar” in lines 22 and 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the connection between the transmission rod and the at least one bar of each frame” in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-13 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo Cabo et al. (US 2011/0203640) in view of Weslow et al. (US Patent 4,215,415) and Wares (US 2010/013974), and further in view of Deboldi et al. (WO 2018/193390).
Regarding claim 1, Domingo Cabo et al. discloses a plant for producing electricity comprising:
a support structure formed by support poles (see support 5 and footing 6 in fig. 3 aligned fixed to a ground, to form one or more rows of poles (see annotated figs. 1-3);
a profile or main tube (see pivoting shaft 4, figs. 1-3, and annotated fig. 1 below) rotating around a first axis positioned on each row of poles (see figs. 1-3, and more specifically annotated figs. 1below);
a plurality of secondary profiles or tubes (see coupling shafts 2, figs. 1-3 and more specifically annotated fig. 1 below), each secondary tube having an axis and rotating around its axis (see annotated fig. 1 below) constrained to said main tube (4) by means of first bearings (see bushing 3, figs. 1-3, also see annotated fig. 1 below) and arranged parallel to each other and substantially orthogonal with respect to the first axis of the main tube (4, see figs. 1-3 and annotated fig. 1 below;
solar energy receptor devices (1, figs. 1-3, also see annotated fig. 1 below) fixed on the secondary tubes (2, see annotated fig. 1 below), wherein the solar energy receptor devices (1) are rotated around the first axis and the axis of the secondary tubes due to the rotation of the main tubes and the secondary tubes (see fig. 1),
a first rotation control mechanism (see first actuator 11 with arm and lever, see figs. 3- 4, 18-19, [0045]) for rotating the solar energy receptor devices (1) around the first axis of the main tubes (or pivoting shaft 4);
a second rotation control mechanism (see second actuator 20 with radial arm and lever) for rotating the solar energy receptor devices (1) around the axis of the secondary tube (2, see figs. 1 and 19, [0049] and claims 1-6);
wherein the second rotation control mechanism (second actuator 20 with radial arm and lever) comprises a frame (or Y shaped radial arm 16 and connecting rod 15) made integral with each secondary tube (2, see figs. 1 and annotated fig. 19 below), and the frame comprising:
at least two rods or inclined profiles (see fig. 1 and annotated fig. 19 below),
at least one bar (see fig. 1 or annotated fig. 19 below), and
a transmission rod or profile (see connecting rod 15, fig. 1 or annotated fig. 19 below) which integrally connects the at least one bar of each frame,
wherein the transmission rod (15) determines the formation of groups of the secondary tubes (2) in which a substantially horizontal movement of said transmission rod (15) determines a same movement of the frames (16 and 15) and secondary tubes (2) belonging to a same group (see figs. 1-3);
wherein the connection between the transmission rod (15) and the at least one bar of each frame (16) designed to allow rotation of the at least one bar around the axis of each secondary pipe (2) with respect to linear movement of the transmission rod (15, see figs. 1 and 19 below), and
PNG
media_image1.png
674
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
616
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Domingo Cabo et al. discloses the core end of the “Y” shaped frame hingeably connected to the transmission rod (or connection rod 15) to allow the rotation of the core end of the “Y” shaped frame and the secondary tube (2, [0047]), wherein the core end of the “Y” shaped frame is disposed beneath the main tube (4) and parallel to the secondary tubes (2, see figs. 1-3 and 19). Domingo Cabo et al. also teaches using bearing with sleeve (see bushing 3, figs. 1-3 and 19) on a bar (or coupling shaft 2) above a rod (or pivoting shaft 4) to allow a rotation of the solar energy receptor devices (1). Domingo Cabo et al. does not explicitly disclose the “Y” shaped frame of Domingo Cabo having the core end including a bar having one of the rods of the frame being disposed at each end of the bar such that the connection between the transmission rod and the at least one bar of each frame is made through sleeves each provided with a second bearing designed to allow rotation of the bar.
Weslow et al. teaches a “Y” shape frame supporting the solar energy receptor (10) comprising two rods (31 and 32) and a core end including a bar (26 and 27) and a gear box (25, see fig. 1), wherein the rods disposed at each end of the bar such that the connection between the bar (26/27) and the rod below (or cross arm 23) through sleeves (or gear box 25) provided with a second bearing (or the circular tube surrounding the bar 26/27) to allow rotation (or pivoting) of the bar of the frame (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core end of the “Y” shaped frame of Domingo Cabo to include a bar (26/27) and a sleeve provided with a bearing (or gear box 25), wherein the rods (32/31) disposed at the ends of the bar (26/27) as taught by Weslow et al., because Domingo Cabo explicitly discloses the “Y” shaped frame hingeably and rotationally connected to the transmission rod (or connection rod 15) and using bearing for rotation. Such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Domingo Cabo et al. teaches using motor unit for rotation (see [0012]) integrated with the first bearing (3) that allow the rotation of the secondary tubes (2) with respect to the main tube (4) in such a way the rotation imparted on one secondary tube by the motor unit is distributed to all of the secondary tubes of the same group exploiting the transmission rod (15, see figs. 1 and 19)
Modified Domingo Cabo et al. does not teach the second rotation control mechanism comprises a motor that is a rotary actuator of a slew drive type, nor do they teach two adjacent sets of the plurality of secondary tubes are connected by a transmission bar disposed above the transmission rod.
Deboldi et al. teaches using a moto unit that is a rotary actuator of a slew drive type (see worm screw in fig. 9; page 4, lines 26-28, also see gear in fig. 7b). Reboldi et al. also discloses the two adjacent sets of the plurality secondary tubes (5) are connected by means of a transmission bar (82-83) located in the main tube (4, see figs. 7a-b).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of modified Domingo Cabo et al. by including a rotary actuator of a slew drive type as taught by Deboldi et al., because Domingo Cabo et al. explicitly suggests using motor unit for rotation. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known motor unit for its intended use of rotating in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of modified Domingo Cabo by connecting the two adjacent sets of the plurality of secondary tubes by means of a transmission bar located in the main tube as taught by Reboldi et al., because Domingo Cabo et al. explicitly suggests connecting the two adjacent sets of the plurality secondary tubes by means of the main tube and Reboldi et al. teaches connecting the sets of secondary tubes by means of transmission bar located in the main tube (or ultimately by means of the main tube) would provide correct balancing between weight and strength (see page 8, lines 27-29 of Reboldi et al.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Domingo Cabo et al. discloses a plant as in claim 1 above.
Modified Domingo Cabo does not disclose the first rotation control mechanism and the second rotation control mechanism are controlled by an electronic processing unit which determines an angle that the solar energy receptor devices must present using an inclination sensor.
Reboldi et al. discloses the rotation control mechanisms are controlled by an electronic processing unit (or a suitable electronic controller) which is determined an angle that the solar energy receptor devices (or panels) must present using an inclination sensor (see paragraph bridging cols. 8 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of modified Domingo Cabo et al. by incorporating the electronic processing unit and an inclination sensor as taught by Reboldi et al., because Reboldi et al. teaches such incorporation would allow the movement of the plant to be controlled simultaneously that still continue to move independently (see page 9, lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 10, modified Domingo Cabo et al. discloses a plant as in claim 1 above.
Modified Domingo Cabo et al. does not disclose the main tube is made by means of a plurality of lengths joined together at intermediate poles of a same row.
Reboldi et al. discloses the main tube is made by means of a plurality of lengths (4) joined together at intermediate poles (2) of a same row (see figs. 2-7).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the main tube (4) of Domingo Cabo et al. by making integral of a plurality lengths joined together at the intermediate poles of a same row as taught by Reboldi et al., since such modification would have involved making elements integral and making elements integral is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 11, modified Domingo Cabo et al. discloses a plant as in claim 1 above.
Modified Domingo Cabo et al. does not disclose the first rotation control mechanism as claimed.
Reboldi et al. discloses a first rotation control mechanism comprising a support and movement support arranged on each pole, having a housing to receive the main tube (4), a bracket crimped on the primary main tube, and a linear actuator, wherein the actuator is arranged between the bracket and the support pole.
Reboldi et al. discloses a first rotation control mechanism comprising a support and support movement (6, figs. 4a-b and 5) being arranged on each pole (2, figs. 4a-b and 5) and having a housing (see saddle 62, figs. 4a-b), a bracket (72, fig. 5), and a linear actuator (73) arranged between the bracket (72) and the support pole (2, see fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plant of modified Domingo Cabo et al. by using a first rotation control mechanism comprising a support and movement support having a housing, a bracket and a linear actuator as taught by Reboldi et al., because Reboldi et al. teaches such housing would provide a housing for the main tube and the bearings to allow rotation, the bracket would provide constrain to the actuator to allow rotation movement to be generated (see page 6, line 5 through page 7, line 21) such that the materials for the various parts are selected for correct balancing between weight and strength (see page 8, lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 12, modified Domingo Cabo et al. discloses a plant as in claim 1 above, wherein Domingo Cabo et al. teaches the plant comprises several parallel rows (see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, modified Domingo Cabo et al. disclose a plant as in claim 1 above, wherein Domingo Cabo et al. discloses the receiving solar energy receptor devices are photovoltaic panels (see [0001]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, and 9-13 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.
Applicant argues Wares and Domingo Cabo do not disclose the frame as claimed and the connection between the transmission rod and the at least one bar of each frame as claimed. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Applicant argues there is nothing in the cited references that suggests replacing one of the bearing C with a slew drive motor to rotate the panel. The examiner replies that claim 1 recites “the second rotation control mechanism comprises a motor which is a rotatory actuator of a slew drive type acting as said first bearing or integrated with the first bearing. Claim 1 does not recite replacing the first bearing with a slew drive type. Domingo Cabo teaches using a motor for the second rotation control ([0012]).
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 THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights