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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first component” in claims 1 and 13 (interpreted to be PV modules, piles, support structures (like torque tubes), torque tubes, or mounting elements (like brackets), see for example Para. 0043 of Applicant’s specification), “a second component” in claims 1 and 13 (interpreted to be PV modules, piles, support structures (like torque tubes), torque tubes, or mounting elements (like brackets), see for example Para. 0043 of Applicant’s specification), “a support structure” in claims 4 and 15 (interpreted to be a torque tube, see for example Para. 0042 of Applicant’s specification), “a mounting element” in claims 4 and 15 (interpreted to be brackets, see for example Para. 0040 of Applicant’s specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9, 11-12, and 14-20 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.
Regarding claim 9, “a portion of a first component” and “a portion of a second component” is are indefinite because it is unclear if “a portion .of a first component” and “a portion of a second component” in claim 9 is the same as “a portion of a first component” and “a portion of a second component” in claim 1. For examination purposes, “a portion of a first component” and “a portion of a second component” in claim 9 is being interpreted to be “the portion of the first component” and “the portion of the second component”.
Regarding claim 11, “an impact force” is indefinite because it is unclear if “an impact force” in claim 11 is the same as “an impact force” in claim 10. For examination purposes, “an impact force” in claim 11 is being interpreted to mean “the impact force”.
Regarding claim 12, “an impact force” is indefinite because it is unclear if “an impact force” in claim 12 is the same as “an impact force” in claim 10. For examination purposes, “an impact force” in claim 12 is being interpreted to mean “the impact force”.
Regarding claims 14-20, “the system” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ballentine et al (US 2020/0153382).
Regarding claim 13, Ballentine discloses a solar power system (Fig. 1, item 1100) comprising:
a first component (Fig. 3, item 1150);
a second component (Fig. 3, item 1200); and
a high-impact fastener (Fig. 3, item 1310, 1342) extending through a portion of the first component (Para. 0069-0071) and through a portion of the second component (Para. 0069-0071) to prevent slippage between the first and second components (Para. 0069-0071).
Regarding claim 14, Ballentine discloses the system of claim 13, further comprising:
a strap (Fig. 3, item 1300) secured over a top surface of the high-impact fastener (Fig. 3, strap 1300 is over a top surface of nut plates 1342) (Para. 0087) and around the first and second components (Para. 0069) to prevent a disengagement of the high-impact fastener (Para. 0069) from the first and second components (Para. 0069) and a separation between the first and second components (Para. 0069).
Regarding claim 15, Ballentine discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the first component is a support structure (Fig. 3, item 1150, torque tube 1150) and the second component is a mounting element (Fig. 3, item 1200, mounting bracket).
Regarding claim 17, Ballentine discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the support structure is a torque tube (Fig. 3, item 1150, torque tube 1150).
Regarding claim 19, Ballentine discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the first component is a torque tube (Fig. 3, item 1150, torque tube 1150) and the second component is an internal torque tube coupler (Fig. 3, item 1200).
Regarding claim 20, Ballentine discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the first component is a torque tube (Fig. 3, item 1150, torque tube 1150) and the second component is an external torque tube coupler (Fig. 3, item 1200).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballentine et al (US 2020/0153382) in view of Aftanas (US 2011/0214365).
Regarding claim 1, Ballentine discloses a method of assembling a solar power system (Fig. 1, item 1100), the method comprising:
positioning (Para. 0055-0057) a first component (Fig. 3, item 1150) of the solar power system proximate to a second component (Fig. 3, item 1200) of the solar power system (Para. 0055-0057); and
driving a high-impact fastener (Fig. 3, item 1310, 1342) through a portion of the first component (Para. 0069-0071) and through a portion of the second component (Para. 0069-0071) to prevent slippage between the first and second components (Para. 0069-0071).
Ballentine does not expressly disclose using an actuated fastener device to drive the high-impact fastener.
However, Aftanas teaches using an actuated fastener device (Aftanas, Para. 0028) to drive the high-impact fastener (Aftanas, Fig. 4, item 14) to secure a first component (Aftanas, Fig. 4, item 54) of a solar power system (Aftanas, Para. 0028) to a second component (Aftanas, Fig. 4, item 12) of the solar power system (Aftanas, Para. 0028).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Ballentine and Aftanas to modify the method of Ballentine to include the actuated fastener device of Aftanas. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to ensure maximum torque is reached to securely fasten the first component to the second component (Aftanas, Para. 0028).
Regarding claim 2, Ballentine discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
securing a strap (Fig. 3, item 1300) over a top surface of the high-impact fastener (Fig. 3, strap 1300 is over a top surface of nut plates 1342) (Para. 0087) and around the first and second components (Para. 0069) to prevent a disengagement of the high-impact fastener from the first and second components (Para. 0069) and a separation between the first and second components (Para. 0069).
Regarding claim 4, Ballentine discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first component is a support structure (Fig. 3, item 1150, torque tube 1150) and the second component is a mounting element (Fig. 3, item 1200, mounting bracket).
Regarding claim 5, Ballentine discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the support structure is a torque tube (Fig. 3, item 1150, torque tube 1150).
Regarding claim 6, Ballentine in view of Aftanas does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the actuated fastener device comprises a powder actuated fastener device.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize a powder actuated fastener device, since applicant has not disclosed that a powder actuated fastener device solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the power tool of Aftanas.
Regarding claim 7, Ballentine in view of Aftanas does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the actuated fastener device comprises a gas actuated fastener device.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize a gas actuated fastener device, since applicant has not disclosed that a gas actuated fastener device solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the power tool of Aftanas.
Regarding claim 8, Ballentine in view of Aftanas does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the actuated fastener device comprises an electronically actuated fastener device.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize a electronically actuated fastener device, since applicant has not disclosed that a electronically actuated fastener device solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the power tool of Aftanas.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Ballentine teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the actuated fastener device (Aftanas, Para. 0028) is configured to drive the high-impact fastener through a portion of a first component (Ballentine, Fig. 3, item 1150) of a solar power system (Ballentine, Para. 0069-0071) and a portion of a second component (Ballentine, Fig. 3, item 1300) of the solar power system (Ballentine, Para. 0069-0071) to attach the first component to the second component (Ballentine, Para. 0069-0071).
Regarding claim 10, Ballentine in view of Aftanas does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the actuated fastener device is configured to apply an impact force equal to or greater than one hundred joules.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply an impact force equal to or greater than one hundred joules, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233.
Regarding claim 11, Ballentine in view of Aftanas does not expressly disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the actuated fastener is configured to apply an impact force at a level of approximately one hundred fifty joules.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply an impact force equal to or greater than one hundred fifty joules, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233.
Regarding claim 12, Ballentine in view of Aftanas does not expressly disclose the method of claim 10, wherein the actuated fastener is configured to apply an impact force at a level of approximately three hundred thirty-five joules.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply an impact force equal to or greater than three hundred thirty-five joules, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballentine et al (US 2020/0153382).
Regarding claim 16, Ballentine does not expressly disclose the system of claim 15, wherein the support structure is a pile.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize a pile as the support structure, since applicant has not disclosed that a pile solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the torque tube.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballentine et al (US 2020/0153382) in view of Schulte et al (US 2018/0062568), hereinafter Schulte.
Regarding claim 18, Ballentine is silent about the system of claim 17, further comprising a PV module that is secured to the torque tube through the mounting element.
However, Schulte teaches a solar power system (Schulte, Fig. 2) comprising a PV module (Schulte, Fig. 2, item 110) that is secured to the torque tube (Schulte, Fig. 2, item 102) through the mounting element (Schulte, Fig. 2, item 202).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Ballentine and Schulte to modify the solar power system of Schulte to include the PV module of Schulte. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to permit the solar power system to pivot the solar modules to track the movement of the sun (Schulte, Para. 0001).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731