DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, Line 6, “beam” should read --beams--
Claim 6, Line 15, “beam” should read --beams--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parrish (US Pat. No. 9,434,584 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1, Parrish teaches a solar table rack comprising: a base frame (14): a pair of vertical beams (40, 41) coupled to the base frame; and multiple pairs of cantilevered beams (52) attached to the pair of vertical beams capable of supporting multiple solar tables (e.g.; the rack can support various articles and components as desired; Col 3, Lines 1-3), the multiple pairs of cantilevered beams are stacked vertically, each pair of cantilevered beams is capable of jointly supporting one of the multiple solar tables each comprising a torque tube and one or more solar panels attached to the torque tube (e.g.; by placing the table across two corresponding beams located adjacent each other at the same height; see dotted outline as an example above).
In regards to claim 3, Parrish teaches one or more reinforcement beams (42, 44) for structural reinforcement of the solar table rack.
In regards to claim 4, Parrish teaches a pair of forklift receiving sleeves (27) attached to the base frame to receive forks (22, Fig. 6) from a forklift for solar table rack transportation.
In regards to claim 6, Parrish teaches a solar table rack stack comprising: a first solar table rack (10) comprising: a first base frame (14); a first pair of stackable beams (40, 41) extending upward from the first base frame (Col 6, Lines 29-38); and a first plurality of cantilevered beams (52) stacked vertically and coupled to each of the first pair of stackable beam; and a second solar table rack (i.e.; another of 10) stacked above the first solar table rack, the second solar table rack comprising: a second base frame (14); a second pair of stackable beams (40, 41) extending upward from the second base frame, each of the second pair of stackable beams has a bottom end that is hollow (i.e.; U-shaped cross-section; Col 5, Lines 4-5) and configured to stack on a top end of one of the first pair of stackable beams from the first solar table rack (via 62); and a second plurality of cantilevered beams (52) stacked vertically and coupled to each of the second pair of stackable beam; and wherein the first and the second plurality of cantilevered beams are capable of supporting multiple solar tables each comprising a torque tube and one or more solar panels attached to the torque tube (e.g.; by placing the tables across two corresponding beams located adjacent each other at the same height; see dotted outline as an example above).
In regards to claim 7, Parrish teaches the first and the second solar table racks (10) further comprises one or more reinforcement beams (42, 44) for structural reinforcement.
In regards to claim 9, Parrish teaches the first solar table rack (10) further comprising: a pair of forklift receiving sleeves (27) attached to the first base frame to receive forks (22, Fig. 6) from a forklift for rack stack transportation.
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 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrish (US Pat. No. 9,434,584 B2) in view of Potter (US Pub. No. 2014/0076383 A1).
In regards to claim 2 and 8, Parrish does not teach each cantilevered beam comprising: a tube hook that is rotatable to lock the torque of one of the multiple solar tables; or a wedge clamp to support the torque tube of one of the multiple solar tables (claim 2); and each of the first and second plurality of cantilevered beams comprises a tube hook that is rotatable to lock the torque tube of one of the multiple solar tables (claim 8).
Potter teaches cantilever beams (130, Fig. 19) comprising a tube hook (730, Fig. 26) that is rotatable to be capable of locking a torque tube (e.g.; similar to 810) of a corresponding solar table (Para. 0098).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Parrish’s rack such that each cantilevered beam comprising: a tube hook that is rotatable to lock the torque of one of the multiple solar tables; or a wedge clamp to support the torque tube of one of the multiple solar tables (claim 2); and each of the first and second plurality of cantilevered beams comprises a tube hook that is rotatable to lock the torque tube of one of the multiple solar tables (claim 8). The motivation would be for the purpose of removably attaching a solar module array after assembly as taught by Potter (Para. 0080).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parrish (US Pat. No. 9,434,584 B2) in view of Bush (US Pat. No. 6,279,763 B1).
In regards to claim 10, Parrish does not teach the first solar table rack further comprising: a first pair of rack legs that are foldable, the pair of rack legs are folded for transportation stability and unfolded to support the solar table rack stack.
Bush teaches a rack having a first pair of rack legs (12A, 12C, Fig. 1) that are foldable, the pair of rack legs are folded for transportation stability and unfolded to support the solar table rack stack.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Parrish’s rack to include a first pair of rack legs that are foldable, the pair of rack legs are folded for transportation stability and unfolded to support the solar table rack stack. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing collapsibility for a cost-effective stackable storage unit as taught by Bush (Col 1, Lines 44-49).
In regards to claim 11, Parrish does not teach the second solar table rack further comprising: a second plurality of rack legs that are foldable, when the second plurality of rack legs are folded, the bottom ends of the second pair of stackable beams are exposed for receiving corresponding top ends of the first pair of stackable beams from the first solar table rack.
Bush teaches a second rack (i.e.; the dotted rack in Fig. 5) comprising a second plurality of rack legs (12A, 12C) that are foldable, when the second plurality of rack legs are folded, the bottom ends of a second pair of stackable beams (12B, Fig. 5) are exposed for receiving corresponding top ends (12E) of a first pair of stackable beams (12F) from a first rack.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Parrish’s rack such that the second solar table rack further comprising: a second plurality of rack legs that are foldable, when the second plurality of rack legs are folded, the bottom ends of the second pair of stackable beams are exposed for receiving corresponding top ends of the first pair of stackable beams from the first solar table rack. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing collapsibility for a cost-effective stackable storage unit as taught by Bush (Col 1, Lines 44-49).
In regards to claim 12, modified Parrish teaches the first base frame (Parrish: 14) comprises a pair of support beams (Parish: 18, 19) and a pair of connection beams (Parrish: 20, 21) coupled between the pair of support beams for structural connection.
Claims 14, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemat et al. (US Pat. No. 10,801,755 B1) in view of Parrish (US Pat. No. 9,434,584 B2).
In regards to claim 14, Nemat teaches a system for handling multiple solar tables, the system comprising: a solar table rack stack comprising a pair (401, Fig. 4) of cantilevered beams stacked vertically to support a solar table (100), the pair of cantilevered beams is configured to jointly support the solar table, the solar table comprises a torque tube (111) and one or more solar panels (200) attached to the torque tube; and an end effector (300, Fig. 1) comprising a support bar (300, Fig. 10), a first tube holder (302) placed on a first end of the support bar, a second tube holder (302) placed on a second end of the support bar, and a pair of forklift receiving sleeves (301) securely attached to the support bar; and wherein the first tube holder and the second tube holder are configured to hold a torque tube (111) of one solar table among the multiple solar tables to fetch the one solar table from the solar table rack stack for installation.
Nemat does not teach multiple pairs of cantilevered beams stacked vertically to support multiple solar tables. Parrish teaches a rack including multiple pairs of cantilevered beams (52) stack vertically to support various articles and components as desired (Col 3, Lines 1-3), and are capable of supporting solar tables thereon (e.g.; see dotted outline as an example in the figure above).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Nemat’s system to include multiple pairs of cantilevered beams stacked vertically to support multiple solar tables. The motivation would be for the purpose of transporting a multiple of various articles and components as desired as taught by Parrish (Col 3, Lines 1-3; see Figs. 1 and 7 show multiple articles).
In regards to claim 15, modified Nemat teaches the first tube holder (Nemat: 302, Fig. 10) has a first groove (Nemat: 305) and the second tube holder (Nemat: 302) has a second groove (Nemat: 305) for holding the torque tube.
In regards to claim 17, Nemat does not teach the solar table rack stack comprises a pair of sleeves to receive forks from a forklift for solar table rack transportation. Parrish teaches a rack stack comprising a pair of sleeves (27) to receive forks (22, Fig. 6) from a forklift rack transportation.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Nemat’s system such that the solar table rack stack comprises a pair of sleeves to receive forks from a forklift for solar table rack transportation. The motivation would be for the purpose of transporting the rack to any desired location for storage and/or use as taught by Parrish (Col 7, Lines 3-5).
In regards to claim 18, Nemat does not teach the solar table rack stack comprises a first solar table rack and a second solar table rack stacked above the first solar table rack, the multiple pairs of cantilevered beams are distributed between the first and the second solar table racks.
Parrish teaches the rack stack comprises a first rack (10) and a second rack (10) stacked above the first rack, the multiple pairs of cantilevered beams (52) are distributed between the first and the second racks.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Nemat’s solar table rack stack to comprise a first solar table rack and a second solar table rack stacked above the first solar table rack, the multiple pairs of cantilevered beams are distributed between the first and the second solar table racks. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing an additional rack apparatus in a stacked relationship as taught by Parrish (Col 6, Lines 33-38), thus allowing additional storage.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemat et al. (US Pat. No. 10,801,755 B1) and Parrish (US Pat. No. 9,434,584 B2), and in further view of Potter (US Pub. No. 2014/0076383 A1).
In regards to claim 16, Nemat, modified by Parrish, does not teach the first tube holder has a first pair of anti-rotational bars placed on both sides of the first groove, and the second tube holder has a second pair of anti-rotational bars placed on both sides of the second groove.
Potter teaches an end effector (200, Fig. 20) having first and second pairs of anti-rotational bars (2040) placed on both sides of respective first and second grooves of tube holders (i.e.; the grooves defined between each pair of 2040).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Nemat’s system such that the first tube holder has a first pair of anti-rotational bars placed on both sides of the first groove, and the second tube holder has a second pair of anti-rotational bars placed on both sides of the second groove. The motivation would be for the purpose of aligning and preventing lateral movement as taught by Potter (Para. 0094).
Claims 19 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemat et al. (US Pat. No. 10,801,755 B1) and Parrish (US Pat. No. 9,434,584 B2), and in further view of Bush (US Pat. No. 6,279,763 B1).
In regards to claim 19, Nemat, modified by Parrish, does not teach each of the first and the second solar table racks comprises a plurality of rack legs that are foldable. Bush teaches stackable rack (10) each having a plurality of rack legs (e.g.; 12A, 12C, Fig. 1) that are foldable.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Nemat’s system such that each of the first and the second solar table racks comprises a plurality of rack legs that are foldable. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing collapsibility for a cost-effective stackable storage unit as taught by Bush (Col 1, Lines 44-49).
In regards to claim 20, in modifying Nemat, Parrish teaches the first solar table rack further comprises a first pair of stackable beams (Parrish: 40, 41) for cantilevered beam (Parrish: 52) attachment; and the second solar table rack further comprises a second pair of stackable beams (Parrish: 40, 41) for cantilevered beam (Parrish: 52) attachment, each of the second pair of stackable beams has a bottom end that is hollow (i.e.; U-shaped cross-section; Col 5, Lines 4-5 of Parrish) and configured to stack on a top end of one of the first pair of stackable beams from the first solar table rack (i.e.; via 62 of Parrish).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious a solar table rack stack having the combination of structural and functional limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Parrish does not disclose any solar table or a solar table rack. In response to applicant's argument, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Parrish teaches the rack can support various articles and components as desired (Col 3, Lines 1-3). Parrish’s cantilever beams are capable of jointly supporting a solar table by placing the solar table across two beams located at the same height of the rack (e.g.; see dotted outline below).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In addition, Applicant argues Parrish teaches away from the claimed invention. However, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Parrish teaches the rack can support various articles and components as desired (Col 3, Lines 1-3). Therefore, Parrish does not teach the rack usable only to support tires.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues Potter’s cantilever arms are not attached to a vertical beam. However, Parrish’s cantilever arms art attached to vertical beams, and the Examiner is relying on Potter to teach providing tube hooks on the cantilever arms as addressed in the rejection above. In addition, the Examiner is relying on the teachings of Nemat for foldability of the legs to modify the existing structure of Parrish as addressed in the rejection above. In determining obviousness, it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review (In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In particular, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention be expressly suggested in any one or all references (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)). In an obviousness analysis it is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account (Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights