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 11/5/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Creasy (US Pub No. 2022/0123689)
Regarding Claim 1, Creasy et al. teaches a solar tracker system [100, Fig. 1, 0027], comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic modules [Each 140, Fig. 1, 0027] mounted in single row [Fig. 1, 0027];
a drive shaft [150, Fig. 1, 0027] operatively coupled to the plurality of photovoltaic modules and defining an axis of rotation about which the plurality of photovoltaic modules in the row synchronously rotate [0027];
at least one drive motor [130, Fig. 1, 0027, and actuator 130 may include motor, 0043] operatively coupled to the drive shaft and configured to rotate the drive shaft to synchronously rotate the plurality of photovoltaic modules in the row about the axis of rotation [0058];
a controller [110, Fig. 1, 0027] operatively connected to the at least one drive motor [130, Fig. 1, 0027] and configured to control operation of the at least one drive motor between an operative state and an inoperative state [0022-0023];
a first angle detector [120, Fig. 1, 0027, one or more sensors] operatively connected to the controller [110, Fig. 1, 0027] and being mounted at a first location along a length of the single row [0028]; the first angle sensor generating first angle data indicative of a first angle of rotation of at least one of the plurality of photovoltaic modules in the row at the first location [0038]; and
a second angle detector [120, Fig. 1, 0027, one or more sensors] operatively connected to the controller [110, Fig. 1, 0027] and being mounted at a second location along the length of the single row [0028]and spaced from the first location, the second angle sensor generating second angle data indicative of a second angle of rotation of at least one of the plurality of photovoltaic modules in the row at the second location [0038];
wherein the controller [110, Fig. 1, 0027] is configured to receive and compare the first angle data and the second angle data and, if there is a difference between the first angle data and the second angle data that meets or exceeds a predetermined angle deviation, the controller is operable to transition the at least one drive motor from the operative state to the inoperative state [0038, 0040]
Regarding Claim 2, Creasy et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Creasy et al. teaches wherein the first location of the first angle sensor is proximate to the at least one drive motor and the second location of the second angle sensor is proximate to a free end of the row [0028, the sensors 120 can be positioned at any location on the solar panels 140].
Regarding Claim 3, Creasy et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Creasy et al. teaches wherein the first location of the first angle sensor is proximate to one free end of the row and the second location of the second angle sensor is proximate to an opposite free end of the row [0028, the sensors 120 can be positioned at any location on the solar panels 140].
Regarding Claim 5, Creasy et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Creasy et al. teaches wherein the drive shaft comprises a torque tube [150, Fig. 1, 0027].
Regarding Claim 10, Creasy et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Creasy et al. teaches further comprising:
a plurality of rails [See structure below 150 in figure 1, 0027, it is expected there would be another structure below 150 on the other side of solar tracker] operatively coupled to the drive shaft [150, Fig. 1, 0027],
wherein an adjacent pair of rails are operatively coupled to respective opposite side edges of a respective one of the plurality of photovoltaic modules [Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 12, Creasy et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Creasy et al. teaches wherein at least one of the first and second angle detectors comprises one of an inclinometer, an optical device, an encoder, an accelerometer, or gyroscope [0028, 0093].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creasy (US Pub No. 2022/0123689)
Regarding Claim 4, Creasy et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Creasy et al. teaches wherein the predetermined angle deviation of +/-30 degrees overlapping the claimed is between 2°and 5° [0038].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creasy (US Pub No. 2022/0123689) in view of Almy (US Pub No. 2017/0179872)
Regarding Claim 6, Creasy et al. is silent on further comprising:
a plurality of posts configured to be mounted in the ground at spaced-apart intervals; and
a plurality of torque bearings each supported by a respective one of the plurality of posts, wherein each of the plurality of torque bearings is configured to rotatably support the torque tube.
Almy et al. teaches a solar tracker comprising a plurality of posts [104, Fig. 3, 0049], and a torque tube [202, Fig. 3, 0049], which supports torque bearings [208, Fig. 3, 0049], where the motors are [206, Fig. 3, 0049]. The bearing engages with an exterior surface of the torque tube and allows free rotation of the torque tube with respect to the support column [0007].
Since Creasy et al teaches a solar tracker comprising a torque tube, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the bearings of Almy et al. on the torque tube of Creasy et al. in order or to allows free rotation of the torque tube with respect to the support column [0007].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the tracking structure of modified Casey et al. with the posts of Almy et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for solar trackers 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.).
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Creasy et al. teaches wherein the at least one drive motor is supported by one of the plurality of posts intermediate opposite free ends of the row [see rejection of claim 6].
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Creasy et al. teaches further comprising:
a plurality of drive motors operatively coupled to the drive shaft and configured to rotate the drive shaft to synchronously rotate the plurality of photovoltaic modules in the row about the axis of rotation [Fig. 1, 0027].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Creasy et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of drive motors is supported by a respective one of the plurality of posts located intermediate opposite free ends of the row [Fig. 1, 0027]
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creasy (US Pub No. 2022/0123689) in view of Kesler (US Pub No. 2023/0378901)
Regarding Claim 11, Creasy et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Creasy et al. is silent on wherein the at least one drive motor comprises a slew drive or an electric motor.
Kesler et al. teaches a drive motor which comprises slew drive [0038].
Since Maxey et al. teaches the use of a motor for a solar tracker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the motor of Maxey et al. with the drive motor of Kesler et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for motors of solar trackers 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 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the arguments about helixing, the arguments are relevant; however, are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The prior art meets all the limitations of the claims.
Casey et al. teaches wherein the controller [110, Fig. 1, 0027] is configured to receive and compare the first angle data and the second angle data and, if there is a difference between the first angle data and the second angle data that meets or exceeds a predetermined angle deviation, the controller is operable to transition the at least one drive motor from the operative state to the inoperative state [0038, 0040].
The controller 110 receives data from multiple sensors 120, the sensors may be associated with different rows of panels; therefore, they are receiving first and second angle data.
In relation with para. 27, the panels adjusted based on the angle data. In para. 90-91 and 93, the sensor can be a displacement gauge, an inclinometer, or a gyroscope. The panels monitor degree of rotation relative to an expected physical position, motion, and/or degree of rotation [0028]. Therefore, the sensors are receiving and comparing first and second angle data and adjusting accordingly based on a predetermined angle deviation.
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