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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (US Pub. 2015/0059827 A1) in view of Yu (CN 103968587 A).
Regarding claim 1, Reed discloses a torque tube, used as a rotating main beam, comprising a tube body and a cavity disposed in the tube body (Abstract, lines 1-4: “A solar panel array system has a torque tube supported on upper ends of vertical posts. The torque tube has an octagonal exterior surface and an octagonal interior surface corresponding with the exterior surface”), wherein a cross-section of the tube body in a length direction comprises a first side, a second side, a third side, a fourth side, and a fifth side, wherein the first side, the second side, the third side, the fourth side, and the fifth side are connected end to end in a circumferential direction to form a closed structure (See id);
the tube body is a symmetrical structure with a perpendicular bisector of the third side as an axis, the second side is symmetrical with the fourth side, the first side is symmetrical with the fifth side, and the second side and the fourth side are perpendicular to the third side (Fig. 3, the structure is symmetrical in at least three modes), and the third side defines a mounting-specific reference plane configured to position a solar module when mounting the solar module (Fig. 3, datum surface 43).
However, Reed fails to disclose as taught by Yu, a torque tube with a pentagonal cross-section, used as a rotating main beam (Abstract: “The invention claims a slot type solar light heat collecting pentagonal centre spindle mechanism, comprising a pentagonal frame and iron sheet”);
wherein a cross-section of the tube body in a length direction is a convex pentagon (See Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque tube of Reed to be pentagonal as taught by Yu as a simple substitution of the shape of the torque tube would have no impact on the performance of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein an interior angle formed by the first side and the second side is between 110° and 120° (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein the second side, the third side, and the fourth side are equal in length (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein the torque tube has a pentagonal cross-section at any position extending along the length direction of the tube body (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein any position extending along the length direction of the tube body has the same pentagonal cross-section, and each side of the pentagonal cross-section has a same thickness (Fig. 5, the thickness is approximately consistent).
Regarding claim 8, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Reed, a solar structure, comprising:
a plurality of pillars disposed at intervals along a straight line (Fig. 1, vertical posts 21), wherein a top of each of the plurality of pillars is provided with a bearing module (Pg. 1, [0017], lines 1-2: “Torque tubes 17 are mounted by bearings 19 to vertical posts 21”);
the torque tube with the pentagonal cross-section according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1), wherein the torque tube is rotatably and sequentially disposed on the top of each of the plurality of pillars through the bearing module (Pg. 1, [0001]: “This invention relates in general to torque tubes on which solar or photo-voltaic panels are mounted for rotation with the torque tube”);
a plurality of solar modules, wherein the plurality of solar modules are sequentially disposed along an axial direction of the torque tube and configured to rotate together with the torque tube. (Fig. 1, parallel rows 13).
Regarding claim 9, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Reed, wherein the third side of the torque tube faces toward the plurality of solar modules (See Fig. 3), and the plurality of solar modules are mounted on the third side by purlins (Fig. 3, module clamp 45).
Regarding claim 11, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein in the torque tube, an interior angle formed by the first side and the second side is between 110° and 120° (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein in the torque tube, the second side, the third side, and the fourth side are equal in length (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein in the torque tube, the torque tube has a pentagonal cross-section at any position extending along the length direction of the tube body (See Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein in the torque tube, any position extending along the length direction of the tube body has the same pentagonal cross-section, and each side of the pentagonal cross-section has a same thickness (Fig. 5, the thickness is approximately consistent).
Claim(s) 4-5, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (US Pub. 2015/0059827 A1) in view of Yu (CN 103968587 A), and further in view of Szuba (US Pub. 2013/0020835 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Szuba, wherein a first junction between endpoints of the first side and the second side forms a first round fillet, a second junction between endpoints of the second side and the third side forms a second round fillet, a third junction between endpoints of the third side and the fourth side forms a third round fillet, a fourth junction between endpoints of the fourth side and the fifth side forms a fourth round fillet, and a fifth junction between endpoints of the fifth side and the first side forms a fifth round fillet; a radius of the second round fillet between the second side and the third side is equal to a radius of the third round fillet between the third side and the fourth side; and/or a radius of the first round fillet between the first side and the second side is equal to a radius of the fourth round fillet between the fourth side and the fifth side and equal to a radius of the fifth round fillet between the fifth side and the first side (Fig. 1, each interior corner comprises a rounded fillet).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque tube of Reed in view of Yu to have the fillets of Szuba as they will naturally occur when during the forming process if the straight panel were bent to form a pentagon.
Regarding claim 5, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein the radius of the second round fillet between the second side and the third side is greater than the radius of the first round fillet between the first side and the second side (Fig. 5, the largest angles of the pentagon will inherently have larger radii).
Regarding claim 13, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Szuba, wherein in the torque tube, a first junction between endpoints of the first side and the second side forms a first round fillet, a second junction between endpoints of the second side and the third side forms a second round fillet, a third junction between endpoints of the third side and the fourth side forms a third round fillet, a fourth junction between endpoints of the fourth side and the fifth side forms a fourth round fillet, and a fifth junction between endpoints of the fifth side and the first side forms a fifth round fillet; a radius of the second round fillet between the second side and the third side is equal to a radius of the third round fillet between the third side and the fourth side; and/or a radius of the first round fillet between the first side and the second side is equal to a radius of the fourth round fillet between the fourth side and the fifth side and equal to a radius of the fifth round fillet between the fifth side and the first side (Fig. 1, each interior corner comprises a rounded fillet).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque tube of Reed in view of Yu to have the fillets of Szuba as they will naturally occur when during the forming process if the straight panel were bent to form a pentagon.
Regarding claim 14, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Yu, wherein in the torque tube, the radius of the second round fillet between the second side and the third side is greater than the radius of the first round fillet between the first side and the second side (Fig. 5, the largest angles of the pentagon will inherently have larger radii).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (US Pub. 2015/0059827 A1) in view of Yu (CN 103968587 A), and further in view of Achaerandio Fernández (US Pat. 12,072,124 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Reed in view of Yu discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Reed, wherein the bearing module comprises:
a mounting stand, wherein a plurality of bolts penetrate through the mounting stand (Fig. 2, bracket 27);
a bearing seat disposed on the mounting stand, wherein the bearing seat is provided with a bearing hole (Fig. 2, bearing 19 comprises cavity 29);
a bearing, wherein the bearing is provided with a mounting hole, and the torque tube is fitted in the mounting hole (Fig. 19, the housing of bearing 19 comprises interior bearings).
However, Reed in view of Yu fails to disclose as taught by Achaerandio Fernández, wherein a plurality of bolts penetrate through the mounting stand and are fixedly connected to each of the plurality of pillars (Fig. intermediate regulation part 13 comprises a plurality of bolts securing it to the pillar 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque tube of Reed in view of Yu to comprise the bolts of Achaerandio Fernández as a secure attachment means.
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 HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
