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 Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/10/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 17-25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (US Pub No. 2018/0024222) in view of Fitch (US Pub No. 2013/0008431) and Daniels (US Pat No. 5502929)
Regarding Claim 1, Alexander et al. teaches a solar tracker arrangement [Fig. 1-2, 0078], comprising:
a framework defined by running rails [plurality of 160, Fig. 2, 0082] that extend in a first direction when in an operational configuration, the running rails arranged to be spaced apart and parallel to each other [Fig. 2];
a plurality of PV modules [110, fig. 2, 0082] mounted to the running rails to define a PV module array having a PV module cord length [Fig. 2];
a torsion tube [150, Fig. 2, 0081] extending in a second direction when in an operational configuration, the running rails [plurality of 160, Fig. 2, 0082] secured to the torsion tube such that rotation of the torsion tube tilts the PV modules in the first direction, where the first and second directions are substantially perpendicular [Fig. 2, 0082]; and
Alexander et al. is silent on a first wind break plate mounted to a proximate edge the PV module array along the second direction; and
and a second wind break plate mounted to a distal edge of the PV module array along the second direction.
Fitch et al. teaches a solar energy system [602, Fig. 6, 0050] which comprises multiple wind break plates [606, 608, 612, and 610, Fig. 6, 0050-0051], used to reduce or eliminate wind induced movements acting on the system [0056].
Since Alexander et al. teaches the use of PV modules in figure 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the wind break plates of Fitch et al. on the sides of the PV modules of Alexander et al. in order to reduce or eliminate wind induced movements acting on the system [0056].
Daniels et al. teaches a wind break plate [Fig. 1, Abstract] which comprises perforation resulting in reduced wind [C3 ln 40-50].
Since modified Alexander et al. teaches the use of wind break plates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the wind break plates of modified Alexander et al. with the perforations as taught by Daniels et al. in order to provide reduced wind effects [C3 ln 40-50].
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on wherein the wind break plate has a chord length equal to the PV module array chord length.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of wind break plate, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of wind break plate are changed, the precise parameters of wind break plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the wind break plate has a chord length equal to the PV module array chord length.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of wind break plate in the apparatus of modified Alexander et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. teaches wherein the wind break plate further includes one or more reinforcing members extending across the body section [Daniels: Fig. 2, see 22 as the reinforcing members, C2 ln 18-26].
Regarding Claim 17, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. teaches where the first wind break plate comprises: a perforated body section bordered by support members [16d, Fig. 2, C2 ln 18-35]; and at least one reinforcing member [22, Fig. 2, C2 ln 18-26] extending between a pair of the support members; wherein the perforated body section includes a plurality of perforations therethrough [Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 18, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on wherein the perforations are formed in the range of 30% to 80% of a surface area of the perforated body section.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of wind break plate, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of wind break plate are changed, the precise parameters of wind break plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the perforations are formed in the range of 30% to 80% of a surface area of the perforated body section.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of wind break plate in the apparatus of modified Alexander et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 19, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on wherein adjacent perforations of the plurality of perforations are spaced equidistance from each other.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of wind break plate, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of wind break plate are changed, the precise parameters of wind break plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein adjacent perforations of the plurality of perforations are spaced equidistance from each other.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of wind break plate in the apparatus of modified Alexander et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 20, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on wherein the reinforcing members extend longitudinally between parallel side edges of the perforated body section.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of wind break plate, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of wind break plate are changed, the precise parameters of wind break plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the reinforcing members extend longitudinally between parallel side edges of the perforated body section.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of wind break plate in the apparatus of modified Alexander et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 21, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on wherein the support members have a thickness that is greater than the thickness of the perforated body portion.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of wind break plate, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of wind break plate are changed, the precise parameters of wind break plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the support members have a thickness that is greater than the thickness of the perforated body portion.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of wind break plate in the apparatus of modified Alexander et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 22, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on wherein the reinforcing members have a thickness greater than the support members.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of wind break plate, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of wind break plate are changed, the precise parameters of wind break plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the reinforcing members have a thickness greater than the support members.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of wind break plate in the apparatus of modified Alexander et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 23, Alexander et al. teaches a solar tracker arrangement [Fig. 1-2, 0078], comprising:
a framework defined by running rails [plurality of 160, Fig. 2, 0082] that extend in a first direction when in an operational configuration, the running rails arranged to be spaced apart and parallel to each other [Fig. 2];
a plurality of PV modules [110, fig. 2, 0082] mounted to the running rails to define a PV module array having a PV module cord length [Fig. 2];
a torsion tube [150, Fig. 2, 0081] extending in a second direction when in an operational configuration, the running rails [plurality of 160, Fig. 2, 0082] secured to the torsion tube such that rotation of the torsion tube tilts the PV modules in the first direction, where the first and second directions are substantially perpendicular [Fig. 2, 0082]; and
Alexander et al. is silent on a first wind break plate mounted to a proximate edge the PV module array along the second direction; and
and a second wind break plate mounted to a distal edge of the PV module array along the second direction.
Fitch et al. teaches a solar energy system [602, Fig. 6, 0050] which comprises multiple wind break plates [606, 608, 612, and 610, Fig. 6, 0050-0051], used to reduce or eliminate wind induced movements acting on the system [0056].
Since Alexander et al. teaches the use of PV modules in figure 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the wind break plates of Fitch et al. on the sides of the PV modules of Alexander et al. in order to reduce or eliminate wind induced movements acting on the system [0056].
Daniels et al. teaches a wind break plate [Fig. 1, Abstract] which comprises perforation resulting in reduced wind [C3 ln 40-50].
Since modified Alexander et al. teaches the use of wind break plates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the wind break plates of modified Alexander et al. with the perforations as taught by Daniels et al. in order to provide reduced wind effects [C3 ln 40-50].
Within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. teaches the addition of the windbreak plates of Fitch et al. around the PV module of Alexander et al., and Daniels et al. teaches the perforation of each wind break plate, this would result in a first perorated wind break plate mounted to an proximate edge of the PV module array along the second direction, and a second perforated wind break plate mount to a distal edge of the PV module array along the second direction.
Regarding Claim 24, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on where the plurality of PV modules has
a first cord length and the first perforated wind break panel has second cord length and the first
and second chord lengths are equal.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of wind break plate, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of wind break plate are changed, the precise parameters of wind break plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “where the plurality of PV modules has
a first cord length and the first perforated wind break panel has second cord length and the first
and second chord lengths are equal..” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of wind break plate in the apparatus of modified Alexander et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 25, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. teaches wherein the wind break plate further includes one or more reinforcing members extending across the body section [Daniels: Fig. 2, see 22 as the reinforcing members, C2 ln 18-26].
Regarding Claim 27, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on wherein the perforations are formed in the range of 30% to 80% of a surface area of the perforated body section.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of wind break plate, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of wind break plate are changed, the precise parameters of wind break plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the perforations are formed in the range of 30% to 80% of a surface area of the perforated body section.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of wind break plate in the apparatus of modified Alexander et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 28, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on where the first perforated wind break plate includes a plurality of adjacent perforations spaced equidistance form each other
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of wind break plate, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of wind break plate are changed, the precise parameters of wind break plate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “where the first perforated wind break plate includes a plurality of adjacent perforations spaced equidistance form each other” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of wind break plate in the apparatus of modified Alexander et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 4 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (US Pub No. 2018/0024222) in view of Fitch (US Pub No. 2013/0008431) and Daniels (US Pat No. 5502929) as applied above in addressing claim 1 and 23 respectively, in further view of Corio (US Pub No. 2017/0359017)
Regarding Claim 4 and 26, within the combination above, modified Alexander et al. is silent on wherein the PV module array is arranged in a 2 UP configuration.
Corio et al. teaches a PV module which is arranged in a 2 UP configuration [Fig. 11, 0038].
Since modified Alexander et al. teaches a PV modules around a torque tube, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the PV module of Alexander et al. to the 2UP configuration as taught by Corio et al. as it merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for PV modules in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the arguments about the combination with the Daniel et al. reference, Fitch et al. teaches a solar energy system [602, Fig. 6, 0050] which comprises multiple wind break plates [606, 608, 612, and 610, Fig. 6, 0050-0051], used to reduce or eliminate wind induced movements acting on the system [0056]. The wind brake plates of Fitch et al. are open to having holes in them as well as comb features, teeth, or any other way to alter how wind sheds off the edge of the wind break plate [0064].
Daniels et al. teaches a wind break plate [Fig. 1, Abstract] which comprises perforation resulting in reduced wind [C3 ln 40-50].
Since modified Alexander et al. teaches the use of wind break plates and modified Alexnader et al. also teaches the wind break plates can have holes in them [Fitch: 0064], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the wind break plates of modified Alexander et al. with the perforations as taught by Daniels et al. in order to provide reduced wind effects [C3 ln 40-50].
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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights