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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/5/2026. The traversal is on the grounds that “no serious burden on the Examiner exists” because “If the search and examination of an entire set of claims can be made without serious burden, the full set of claims must be examined on the merits, even though it includes claims directed to distinct or independent inventions” (serious burden exists because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification), “Inventions I, II, and III are sufficiently related such that a thorough search for the subject matter of the elected invention would encompass a search for the subject matter of the non-elected inventions” (they are not related because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification), and the inventions do not have materially different designs, modes of operation, function, or effect; they are not mutually exclusive; and they encompass overlapping subject matter, no example of how the inventions do not have materially different designs, modes of operation, function, or effect or are not mutually exclusive is provided (the species are mutually exclusive at least based on their mutually exclusive structural elements shown in the associated figures).
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 7-9 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. Claim 7 recites a connecting portion at “either distal end” of the bearing adapter, which is confusing. No bearing adapter either end, distal or otherwise, is disclosed. In addition, does the limitation “either” indicate, for example, multiple claimed distal ends?
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.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainer (2008/0051915) in view of Au (2017/0301814).
7. Rainer teaches a truss foundation with an integrated tracker comprising:
a pair of screw anchors, a pair of upper leg sections (figs. 7-8 show the screw legs), and a bearing adapter (figs. 7 shows the part that accepts the legs and to which 4 is bolted), the bearing adapter comprising a connecting portion (the two parts that accept the legs), as best understood, at two bearing adapter distal (bottom) ends, the connecting portions angled apart from one another, a bearing on the bearing adapter. The bearing is not at an approximate middle of the bearing adapter and a bearing pin is not seated in the bearing. Au, fig. 30, teaches a bearing at an approximate middle of a bearing adapter (the “catenoid-shaped bearing adapter”) and a bearing pin (at the top) seated in the bearing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the bearing to be at an approximate middle of the bearing adapter and a bearing pin to be seated in the bearing (by replacing the conventional swivel bearing/adapter with the catenoid-shaped bearing adapter by bolting the Au adapter just like the Rainer adapter is bolted) “to reduce a load of a drive motor operably coupled to the cylindrical torque tube”, para. 11.
8. Rainer in view of Au teaches the truss foundation according to claim 7, Au further comprising a pair of torque tube module brackets attached to opposing ends of the bearing pin, fig. 12, with respective spacers between each module bracket and the bearing, fig. 12.
9. Rainer in view of Au teaches the truss foundation according to claim 7, the Au bearing further comprising a catenoid-shaped opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. 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, 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/Examiner, Art Unit 3633