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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 05 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because Species A and B present distinctly different embodiments that require unrelated search queries. For example, Species A has foldable legs (611, 614), while Species B does not. In addition, Species A has stackable legs, while Species B has supporting pads (670) that do not stack with a top end (635) into a hollow of another leg like Species A. Therefore there is a serious search burden due to the distinct differences between the two species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05 January 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, each instance of “a torque tube of a corresponding solar table” should read --the torque tube of one of the solar tables--
Claim 8, “a torque tube of a corresponding solar table” should read --the torque tube of one of the solar tables--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
In regards to claim 13, it is unclear how the support beams (622, 624, Fig. 6A) have a stacking tip. It appears the stacking tip (635) is part of the stackable beams (632, 634). Appropriate explanation or 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).
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 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 the beams).
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) 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) 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 table across the beams).
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 a torque tube of a corresponding solar table; or a wedge clamp to support a torque tube of a corresponding solar table (claim 2); and each of the first and second plurality of cantilevered beams comprises a tube hook that is rotatable to lock a torque tube of a corresponding solar table (claim 8).
Potter teaches cantilever beams (130, Fig. 19) comprising a tube hook (730) 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 a torque tube of a corresponding solar table (claim 2); and each of the first and second plurality of cantilevered beams comprises a tube hook that is rotatable to lock a torque tube of a corresponding solar table (claim 8). The motivation would be for the purpose of removable attaching a solar module array after assembly as taught by Potter (Para. 0080).
Claims 10-13 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.
In regards to claim 13, as best understood with respect to the 112(b) rejection above, modified Parrish teaches each of the pair of support beams has a stacking tip (Parrish: 62 or Bush: 12E) configured to engage one of the second plurality of rack legs for structural supporting the second solar table rack.
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 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.
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to the Applicant’s disclosed invention.
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