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 3/31/2026 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Taha (WO2018/075368)
Regarding Claim 1, Taha et al. teaches a bearing assembly comprising:
a shaft [330S, Fig. 3B, Fig. 3A-3C, 0033] configured to rotate around a rotation axis and comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the rotation axis extending in a first direction [Fig. 3A-3C, 0033, 0035];
at least one bearing [305, Fig. 3B, fig. 3A-3C, 0032] coupled to the shaft [330S, Fig. 3B, Fig. 3A-3C, 0033];
a first solar module mounting structure coupler [310, Fig. 3B, Fig. 3A-3C, 0032] coupled to the first end of the shaft and configured to support a first solar module mounting structure [See 201 on side of 210, Fig. 2, 0029] comprising a first axis; and
a second solar module mounting structure coupler [312, Fig. 3A-3C, 0032] coupled to the second end of the shaft and configured to support a second solar module mounting structure [See 201 on other side of 210, Fig. 2, 0029] comprising a second axis, the second axis being parallel with the first axis [Fig. 3A-3C, 0032-0033, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative], the first axis being one of above or below the second axis in in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [3A-3C, 0032-0033, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative]
Regarding Claim 2, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first axis is below the rotation axis in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 3C, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative].
Regarding Claim 3, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first axis is above the rotation axis in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 3C, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative].
Regarding Claim 4, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first axis is coaxial with the rotation axis [Fig. 3C, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative].
Regarding Claim 5, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first axis is above the second axis in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 3C, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative].
Regarding Claim 6, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first axis is below the second axis in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 3C, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative].
Regarding Claim 7, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first solar module mounting structure coupler has a first surface directly attached to the shaft, second solar module mounting structure coupler has a second surface directly attached to the shaft, the first surface having a lesser area than the second surface [Fig. 3b, 0036].
Regarding Claim 8, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first solar module mounting structure supports a first solar module having a center of gravity disposed above the rotation axis in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [See Fig. 2, and then Fig. 3C, 0035].
Regarding Claim 9, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first solar module mounting structure supports a first solar module having a center of gravity coaxial with the rotation axis [See Fig. 2, and then Fig. 3C, 0035].
Regarding Claim 10, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first solar module mounting structure supports a first solar module having a center of gravity below the rotation axis in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [See Fig. 2, and then Fig. 3C, 0035].
Regarding Claim 11, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first and second solar module mounting structure coupler are each a cradle [0048, 310 can be adapted with a torque tube].
Regarding Claim 12, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches further comprising first and second cradle clamps attached to the first and second solar module mounting structure couplers [0048, 310 of Fig. 3A-3C is modified with cradle clamp, See Fig. 8A, 735 is the clamp, 0050]].
Regarding Claim 13, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein a top of first cradle clamp is disposed above or flush with a top of the first cradle in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 8A, 0050, 0035].
Regarding Claim 14, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein a top of second cradle clamp is disposed below a top of the second cradle in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 8A, 0050, 0035].
Regarding Claim 21, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the second axis is coaxial with the rotation axis [Fig. 3A-3C, 0032-0033, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative]
Regarding Claim 22, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the second axis is parallel with the rotation axis [Fig. 3A-3C, 0032-0033, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative]
Regarding Claim 23, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first axis is not coaxial with the rotation axis [Fig. 3A-3C, 0032-0033, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative]
Regarding Claim 24, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the first axis is coaxial with the rotation axis [Fig. 3A-3C, 0032-0033, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative]
Regarding Claim 25, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. teaches wherein the second axis is below both the first axis and the rotation axis in a second direction, the second direction perpendicular to the first direction [Fig. 3A-3C, 0032-0033, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative]
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taha (WO2018/075368)
Regarding Claim 15, Taha et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Taha et al. is silent on wherein the first and second solar module mounting structure have a height and length, the height of the first and second solar module mounting structure being substantially identical and the length of the first and second solar module mounting structure being substantially identical, the height and length being perpendicular to each other and the height being perpendicular to the rotation axis and the length being parallel to the rotation axis.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the first and second mounting structure , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the first and second mounting structure are changed, the precise parameters of the first and second mounting structure 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 first and second solar module mounting structure have a height and length, the height of the first and second solar module mounting structure being substantially identical and the length of the first and second solar module mounting structure being substantially identical, the height and length being perpendicular to each other and the height being perpendicular to the rotation axis and the length being parallel to the rotation axis.” 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 the first and second mounting structure 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the new limitations, Taha et al. teaches the first axis being one of above or below the second axis in in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [3A-3C, 0032-0033, 0035, angles between two rotation axes can be positive or negative]. Taha et al. teaches the first and second axis have a wide range of angles relative to each other. Para. 35 suggest angles from 90 to -90 degrees, meeting the limitations of the claim.
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