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 the Application
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, and 21-23 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 04/26/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 12/15/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, 9, 12, and 21 have been amended; Claim 23 has been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that: “Applicant submits that the teachings of Bailey are contrary to the claims as presently amended. In particular, Bailey teaches flexible couplings with rigid shafts connected to one another by the flexible couplings. On the contrary the claimed invention pertains to rigid couplings with flexible shafts connected to one another by the rigid couplings. Both claim 1 and claim 9 now refer to the ends of adjacent drive shafts being rigidly coupled to one another. Claim 1 still provides for flexibility of the drive shaft between couplings and claim 9 provides for one end within a tube while still being rigidly coupled. In view of the arguments and/or amendments, Applicant considers the rejection of claims 1,7, 9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as overcome. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almogy et al. (US 8669462) in view of Roberts (US 4541160), and Jones (US 4249514). Applicant has amended claim 3 to incorporate a rigid coupling and thus further defining that the drive shaft is flexible outside of the rigid coupling. Jones teaches a rigid coupling. Almogy and Roberts do not correct the deficiencies of Jones.” – The examiner respectfully disagrees. Almogy discloses intermediate shafts (Fig. 16C; 420) connected to a drive shaft on each end of the drive shaft with rigid couplings (Fig. 16C; 465). When the drive shaft between intermediate shafts of Almogy is modified by the drive shaft of Bailey, which is flexible at multiple locations along its length, the combination reads on the claim as the drive shaft is flexible along its length outside of the coupling. Additionally, it should be noted that Bailey states in section [0124] that:
“The optional flexible couplings optionally can be welded onto sections of drive tube. The couplings also, or alternatively, can be configured so that they attach with suitable fasteners, e.g., bolts or set screws, or adhesive, e.g., in a direct attach method (e.g., bolted/glued together) or by clamping (e.g., the bolt clamps the two pieces together, either directly or indirectly by themselves or by the introduction of a third component). Additionally, or alternatively, the pieces can be fit together while at elevated or depressed temperature, and then allowed to return to normal temperature to clamp them together. Additionally, or alternatively, the optional flexible couplings can be mounted on any suitable shape of drive tube, e.g., round, square, pentagon-shaped, hexagonal, octagonal, or other shape drive tube, using any suitable attachment, such as but not limited to bolting, clamping, adhesive, or thermal methods of attachment. Alternatively, or additionally, these couplings can be made rigid (e.g., do not allow for angular misalignment). Alternatively, or additionally, the drive tube itself can be flexible enough to account for angular misalignment.” (emphasis added)
Therefore, it is clear that in addition to teaching a drive shaft that is flexible along its length via flexible connections, it also discloses a shaft that is flexible along its entire length, and also that its couplings can be made rigid and as such applicant’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. In regards to claim 9, Bailey discloses the slidable drive shaft and the above passage provides various means of making a slidable connection rigid by a rigid coupling (i.e. via a set screw or friction fit via heat expansion) and as such it reads on the claim. Additionally, this language has been added to claim 21, the above response applies to it as well.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, and 21-23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,855,581. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope (i.e. every recited feature) in the claims of the instant application is encompassed by the claims of the patent.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almogy et al. (US 8,669,462) in view of Bailey et al. (US 2016/0365830) and Jones (US 4,249,514).
Regarding Claim 1, Almogy discloses a solar panel support apparatus comprising: a support frame (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 110, 155, 160, 250, 410) for holding a solar panel; a support post (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 355) pivotally connected to the support frame at a post pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 13-14B; 140) and anchored to an adjacent supporting surface, the support post for positioning the support frame above the adjacent supporting surface; a linear actuator (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 405) coupled at a proximal end to the support post by a support pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 16C-17; 480b, 495) and at a distal end by a frame pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 17; 405b) with the support frame, the post pivot connection and the frame pivot connection spaced apart from one another on the support frame; and a drive shaft (Almogy: Fig. 13, 15A; 420) coupled to the linear actuator, such that rotation of the drive shaft provides for a change in the linear actuator, a first coupling (Almogy: Fig. 16-16C; 465) connected at a first end of the drive shaft and a second coupling (Almogy: Fig. 16A-16C; 465 – on separate unit) connected to a second end of the drive shaft, the second end opposite the first end, such that the first coupling provides a first rigid coupling for connecting the first end to an adjacent first intermediate shaft (Almogy: Fig. 16A-16C; 420) and the second coupling provides a second rigid coupling for connecting the second end to an adjacent second intermediate shaft (Almogy: Fig. 16A-16C; 420), wherein said change of the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about the post pivot connection.
Almogy fails to disclose such that the drive shaft is flexible along its length between the first coupling and the second coupling to facilitate the drive shaft itself to follow changes in grading of the adjacent supporting surface on either side of the support post. However, Bailey teaches a drive shaft (Bailey: Fig. 14C, 14G, 14H; 1406-1408 or 1413-1415 or 1416-1417) such that the drive shaft is flexible along its length between a first coupling and a second coupling to facilitate the drive shaft itself to follow changes in grading of the adjacent supporting surface on either side of a support post (Bailey: [0124]).
Almogy and Bailey are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. adjustable support frames. 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 drive shaft in Almogy with the flexibility taught by Bailey, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a drive shaft that can compensate for angular, vertical, and or/ lateral misalignment that can arise from irregular terrain at an installation site, thereby improving the adaptability of the apparatus (Bailey: [0120]).
Additionally, Almogy fails to explicitly disclose rotation of the drive shaft providing for a change in a length of the linear actuator, wherein said change in a length of the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about the post pivot connection. However, Jones teaches rotation of a drive shaft (Jones: Fig. 1; 69) providing for a change in a length of a linear actuator (Jones: Fig. 1, 3; 24), wherein said change in a length of the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about a post pivot connection (Jones: Fig. 1; 62).
Almogy and Jones are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. adjustable support frames. 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 linear actuator in Almogy with the linear actuator length adjustment mechanism and pivoting connection from Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternate screw jack style linear actuators that can actuate the system by changing their length (Jones: Fig. 3; Col. 5, Ln. 15-45), allowing for the same angle adjustment while lowering the number of protruding elements and increasing the safety of the assembly.
Regarding Claim 7, Almogy, as modified, teaches the solar panel support apparatus of claim 1 further comprising the linear actuator having an extension member (Jones: Annotated Fig. 3; E) configured for extension and retraction in order to provide for said change in the length.
Regarding Claim 9, Almogy discloses a solar panel support apparatus comprising: a support frame (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 110, 155, 160, 250, 410) for holding a solar panel; a support post (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 355) pivotally connected to the support frame at a post pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 13-14B; 140) and anchored to an adjacent supporting surface, the support post for positioning the support frame above the adjacent supporting surface; a linear actuator (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 405) coupled at a proximal end to the support post by a support pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 16C-17; 480b, 495) and at a distal end by a frame pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 17; 405b) with the support frame, the post pivot connection and the frame pivot connection spaced apart from one another on the support frame; a drive shaft (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A, 16A-16C; 420) coupled to the linear actuator, such that rotation of the drive shaft provides for a change in the linear actuator; wherein said change in the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about the post pivot connection.
Almogy fails to disclose a drive shaft comprising a first drive shaft section and a second drive shaft section; the first drive shaft section being operatively coupled to the linear actuator and a second drive shaft section being rigidly coupled by a rigid coupling at an end of the first drive shaft section, the second drive shaft section having a tube interior such that the end is sized to be received within the tube interior and able to slide along an axis of the first drive shaft section relative to the second drive shaft section, the end being rigidly connected to the tube interior by the rigid coupling, such that rotation of one of the first drive shaft section and the second drive shaft section imparts a rotation of the other one of the first drive shaft section and the second drive shaft section. However, Bailey teaches a drive shaft comprising a first drive shaft section (Bailey: Fig. 14F; 1410) and a second drive shaft section (Bailey: Fig. 14F; 1411); the first drive shaft section being operatively coupled to the linear actuator and a second drive shaft section being rigidly coupled by a rigid coupling at an end of the first drive shaft section (Bailey: [0124]), the second drive shaft section having a tube interior such that the end is sized to be received within the tube interior and able to slide along an axis of the first drive shaft section relative to the second drive shaft section, the end being rigidly connected to the tube interior by the rigid coupling, such that rotation of one of the first drive shaft section and the second drive shaft section imparts a rotation of the other one of the first drive shaft section and the second drive shaft section. [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation.]
Additionally, Almogy fails to explicitly disclose rotation of the drive shaft providing for a change in a length of the linear actuator, wherein said change in a length of the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about the post pivot connection. However, Jones teaches rotation of a drive shaft (Jones: Fig. 1; 69) providing for a change in a length of a linear actuator (Jones: Fig. 1, 3; 24), wherein said change in a length of the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about a post pivot connection (Jones: Fig. 1; 62). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation.]
Regarding Claim 12, Almogy, as modified, teaches the solar panel support apparatus of claim 9, wherein the end of the first drive shaft section (Bailey: Fig. 1410) is slidably coupled to within the tube interior prior to forming the rigid coupling (Bailey: [0124]).
Claims 3 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almogy et al. (US 8,669,462) in view of Roberts (US 4,541,160) and Jones (US 4,249,514) and Bailey et al. (US 2016/0365830).
Regarding Claim 3, Almogy discloses a solar panel support apparatus comprising: a support frame (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 110, 155, 160, 250, 410) for holding a solar panel; a support post (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 355) pivotally connected to the support frame at a post pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 13-14B; 140) and anchored to an adjacent supporting surface, the support post for positioning the support frame above the adjacent supporting surface; a linear actuator (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 405) coupled at a proximal end to the support post by a support pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 16C-17; 480b, 495) and at a distal end by a frame pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 17; 405b) with the support frame, the post pivot connection and the frame pivot connection spaced apart from one another on the support frame; and a first gear (Almogy: Fig. 16A-16C; 470) coupled to a drive shaft (Almogy: Fig. 13, 15A; 420) and a second gear (Almogy: Fig. 16A-16C; 475) coupled to the linear actuator, the first gear and the second gear being operatively coupled to one another, such that co-rotation of the first gear and the second gear provide for a change in the linear actuator, the first gear being coupled to the drive shaft; a coupling (Almogy: Fig. 16-16C; 465) connected at an end of the drive shaft such that the coupling provides a rigid coupling for connecting the end to an adjacent drive shaft (Almogy: Fig. 16A-16C; 420), wherein said change the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about the post pivot connection.
Almogy fails to explicitly disclose the first gear being slidably coupled to the drive shaft to allow the drive shaft to translate relative to the first gear along a longitudinal axis of the drive shaft. However, teaches a driven member being slidably coupled to the drive shaft (Roberts: Fig. 1; 10) to allow the drive shaft to translate relative to the driven member along a longitudinal axis of the drive shaft.
Almogy and Roberts are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. driving a plurality of elements with a drive shaft and compensating for differences in the positioning of driven members. 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 connection between the drive shaft and first gear in Almogy with the slidable connection from , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a connection between the shaft and gear that allows for compensation of expansion or contraction of the shaft due to temperature changes or slight relative movement of either driving or driven members (Roberts: Col. 2, Ln. 17-30).
Additionally, Almogy fails to explicitly disclose rotation of the drive shaft providing for a change in a length of the linear actuator, wherein said change in a length of the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about the post pivot connection. However, Jones teaches rotation of a drive shaft (Jones: Fig. 1; 69) providing for a change in a length of a linear actuator (Jones: Fig. 1, 3; 24), wherein said change in a length of the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about a post pivot connection (Jones: Fig. 1; 62). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation.]
Furthermore, Almogy fails to disclose a drive shaft that is flexible along its length outside of a coupling to facilitate the drive shaft itself to follow changes in grading of the adjacent supporting surface on either side of the support post. However, Bailey teaches a drive shaft (Bailey: Fig. 14C, 14G, 14H; 1406-1408 or 1413-1415 or 1416-1417) that is flexible along its length outside of the coupling to facilitate the drive shaft itself to follow changes in grading of the adjacent supporting surface on either side of the support post. [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Regarding Claim 21, Almogy discloses a solar panel apparatus comprising: a support frame (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 110, 155, 160, 250, 410) for supporting a solar panel and for positioning the solar panel adjacent to a post pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 13-14B; 140) on a longitudinal pivot axis of the support frame; a support post (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 355) pivotally coupled to the support frame at the post pivot connection and anchored to an adjacent supporting surface, the support post for positioning the support frame above the adjacent supporting surface, the support post defining a support axis transverse to the longitudinal pivot axis; a bracket (Almogy: Fig. 13-14B; bracket that forms 140) mounted on the support post and extending from the support post, such that the post pivot connection is positioned on the bracket; a linear actuator (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A; 405) including a housing (Almogy: Fig. 16A; 480), the linear actuator coupled at a proximal end to the support post by a support pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 16C-17; 480b, 495) with the housing, and coupled at a distal end by a frame pivot connection (Almogy: Fig. 17; 405b) to the support frame, a drive shaft (Almogy: Fig. 13-15A, 16A-16C; 420) coupled to the linear actuator such that rotation of the drive shaft provides for a change in a length of the linear actuator; a coupling (Almogy: Fig. 16-16C; 465) connected at an end of the drive shaft such that the coupling provides a rigid coupling for connecting the end to an adjacent drive shaft (Almogy: Fig. 16A-16C; 420); wherein said change in the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about the post pivot connection.
Almogy fails to disclose a post pivot connection including an angular adjustment mechanism having multiple degrees of freedom to facilitate adjustment of an angle between the support frame and a second support frame positioned adjacent to the support frame, the support frame and the second support frame being on opposite sides of the support post. However, Werner teaches a post pivot connection (Werner: Fig. 3-6; 34) including an angular adjustment mechanism (Werner: Fig. 3-6; 42, 44, 50) having multiple degrees of freedom to facilitate adjustment of an angle between the support frame and a second support frame positioned adjacent to the support frame, the support frame and the second support frame being on opposite sides of the support post.
Almogy and Werner are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. adjustable support frames. 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 post pivot connection in Almogy with the post pivot connection from Werner, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide pivot connections between the post and frame that compensate for some degree in the rotational variations of the support posts and also reducing stress at the bearings from wind loading by providing for additional compliance in the joint (Werner: [0025]).
Additionally, Almogy fails to explicitly disclose rotation of the drive shaft providing for a change in a length of the linear actuator, wherein said change in a length of the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about the post pivot connection. However, Jones teaches rotation of a drive shaft (Jones: Fig. 1; 69) providing for a change in a length of a linear actuator (Jones: Fig. 1, 3; 24), wherein said change in a length of the linear actuator results in pivoting of the support frame about a post pivot connection (Jones: Fig. 1; 62). [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation.]
Furthermore, Almogy fails to disclose a drive shaft that is flexible along its length outside of a coupling to facilitate the drive shaft itself to follow changes in grading of the adjacent supporting surface on either side of the support post. However, Bailey teaches a drive shaft (Bailey: Fig. 14C, 14G, 14H; 1406-1408 or 1413-1415 or 1416-1417) that is flexible along its length outside of the coupling to facilitate the drive shaft itself to follow changes in grading of the adjacent supporting surface on either side of the support post. [Note: See the rejection of claim 1 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Regarding Claim 22, Almogy, as modified, teaches the solar panel apparatus of claim 21, wherein the angular adjustment mechanism (Werner: Fig. 3-6; 42, 44, 50) is a pivot support coupling having a ball and socket connection.
Regarding Claim 23, Almogy, as modified, teaches the solar panel apparatus of claim 21, wherein drive shaft (Bailey: Fig. 14C, 14G, 14H; 1406-1408 or 1413-1415 or 1416-1417) is rotatably coupled within the linear actuator, the drive shaft having a first drive shaft section and a second drive shaft section, the first drive shaft section and the second drive shaft section being on opposite sides of the support post, such that a second angle other than 180 degrees is present between the first drive shaft section and the second drive shaft section (Bailey: 11B; [0124])).
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
877
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Jones; Fig. 3
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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631