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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 08/15/2025.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 have been amended.
Claim(s) 5 have been canceled.
Claim(s) 7-10 have been added.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 211377959 U, Huang in view of US 2012/0055461, Kroth.
Regarding claims 1 and 8
Huang teaches a single-row solar tracker [see Fig. 1] comprising a rotation shaft (corresponding to main beam 1) on which solar panels are mounted so that they rotate according to a controlled angle (Huang discloses “[w]hen the electric push rod 4 is extended or retracted, it can drive the main beam 1 to rotate, thereby playing a role in adjusting the angle”) [paragraphs 0016, 0025 and 0028-0029],
the rotation shaft (main beam 1) resting on a plurality of supporting masts (corresponding to posts 2), including driving masts (corresponding to upper mounting column 21) [Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0025, 0028 and 0035],
a linear actuator (corresponding to electric push rod 4) in each driving mast (upper mounting column 21) which propels a lever (corresponding to push rod support arm 3) connected to the rotation shaft (main beam 1) causing the rotation shaft (1) to rotate [Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0028-0029], a lower end of the linear actuator (electric push rod 4) being linked through a joint (see rotating shaft support 8) to the driving mast (“[t]he electric push rod 4 and/or the shock absorber 5 are rotatably connected to the upper mounting column 21 through the rotating shaft support 8”) [Fig. 2 and paragraph 0035]; wherein each linear actuator (electric push rod 4) is activated by a corresponding motor (the push rods drive the main beam 1); and
a control system (corresponding to control box 9) that simultaneously activates each motor so that all the solar panels maintain the same orientation (“rotation of the main beam 1 is synchronously driven by a plurality of electric push rods 4” [paragraphs 0029 and 0036].
PNG
media_image1.png
334
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Huang does not teach the control system configured to activate the motors of the linear actuators based on a signal received from one or more motors and/or from sensors installed in each of the linear actuators.
Kroth teaches a single row solar tracker wherein each solar panel comprising a control system wherein control units are integrated directed into drive systems [Fig. 1, paras. 0018 and 0023]. The control units of Kroth are connected to a GPS sensor or equivalent sensor connected to the control units so that data can be coupled into a group of control units [paragraph 0014], wherein the drive systems are actuated based on the signals received [para. 0007]. Kroth further shows that control systems generate control signals from target value data in order to perform the adjustment of the solar modules i.e., activation of the drives/actuators and motors [paragraphs 0007-0010 and 0018].
Huang and Kroth are analogous inventions in the field of solar trackers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to activate the motors of the linear actuators based on a signal received from one or more motors and/or from sensors installed in each of the linear actuators, as in Kroth, in order to appropriately adjust the position of the solar panels.
Regarding claim 2
Huang teaches the solar tracker as set forth above, wherein the control system (9) comprises a central control unit (see central control box 9 in Fig. 1 above) that activates all the motors (“rotation of the main beam 1 is synchronously driven by a plurality of electric push rods 4, it is possible to prevent the main beam 1 from being subjected to excessive torsional force”) [Fig. 1, paragraphs 0029 and 0036].
Regarding claim 6
Huang teaches the solar tracker as set forth above, wherein the control system (9) is configured to regulate the speed of the motors so that the panels move synchronously (“[t]he electric push rods 4 operate uniformly under the control of the control box 9, which is easy to control, so that the rotation of the main beam 1 is stable and the force is balanced”) [paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 3
Huang does not teach the control system comprising a control unit for each motor, comprising a master control unit and the remaining units are slave control units, where the master control unit sends the activation signal to the slave control units to activate the motors.
Kroth teaches a single row solar tracker wherein each solar panel comprises a control unit for each motor (a drive unit and a control unit that are integrated to form one unit) [Fig.1 and paragraph 0018], comprising a master control unit and the remaining units are slave control units (the control units comprise a master control unit and any desired numbed of slave control units) [paragraphs 0016-0018], where the master control unit sends the activation signal to the slave control units to activate the motors (the slave control units are controllable synchronously by the master control unit) [paragraph 0011]. Such allows adjustment of the solar panels (modules) according to the direction of the sun in a manner that both the control and the hardware wiring are simplified [paragraphs 0008-0009].
Huang and Kroth are analogous inventions in the field of solar trackers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control system of Huang to comprise a control unit for each motor, comprising a master control unit and where the remaining units are slave control units, as in Kroth, in order to allow adjustment of the solar panels according to the direction of the sun in a manner that both the control and the hardware wiring are simplified.
Regarding claim 4
Huang is silent to the communication between the control system and the motors and/or communication between the control units so that the motors are activated simultaneously is carried out through wiring and/or wireless means.
Kroth teaches communication between a control system and motors and/or communication between control units so that the motors are activated simultaneously carried out through wiring means (shared power and data transmission line EDL) [Fig. 1 and paragraph 0032]. The wiring means (EDL) of Kroth considerably reduce cabling cost (due to the shared line) and simplify the design [paragraphs 0010 and 0032].
Huang and Kroth are analogous inventions in the field of solar trackers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the communication to have been through wiring means, in this case a shared line, as in Kroth, for the purpose of a providing a simple design and a reduction in cabling cost. Further, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that there exists a finite number of identified, predictable alternatives i.e., wireless or wired. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 7
Huang teaches the solar tracker as set forth above, wherein the plurality of supporting masts (2) further include standard masts (corresponding to posts 22) [Figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0025, 0028 and 0035].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kroth, as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-8 above, and further in view of US 20120152313 A1, Hinman et al. (hereinafter “Hinman”).
Regarding claim 9
Modified Huang does not teach the control system configured to activate the motors (5) of the linear actuators (4) based on a signal received from sensors (8) installed in each of the linear actuators (4).
Hinman teaches a control system for a solar tracker configured to activate the motors of tilt actuators based on a signal received from sensors installed in each of the linear actuators (each tilt linear actuator may have its own magnetic reed switch sensor) [para. 0021].
Modified Huang and Hinman are analogous inventions in the field of solar trackers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar tracker of modified Huang such that sensors are installed in each linear actuators, wherein the control system activates the motors based on a signal received from the sensors, as disclosed in Hinman, for the purpose of controlling the tilt axis of the tracker.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Kroth, as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-8 above, and further in view of US 20180175783 A1, Schimelpfenig et al. (hereinafter “Schimelpfenig”).
Regarding claim 10
Modified Huang does not teach the control system configured to regulate the speeds of the motors (5) based on environmental conditions that act differently on some of the solar panels (2) than on others of the solar panels (2).
Schimelpfenig teaches a solar tracker system comprising a control system that is configured to regulate the speeds of the motors based on environmental conditions that act differently on some of the solar panels than on others of the solar panels (controller can diagnose efficiencies in the motor drives due to changing ambient conditions e.g., increased wind speeds and/or system inefficiencies e.g., misalignment of support assemblies) [paras. 0046, 0058-0059 and 0063-0064].
With regards to regulating the speed, the control system regulates the torque applied by the motor drives based on wind loads [paras. 0063-0064].
Modified Huang and Schimelpfenig are analogous inventions in the field of solar trackers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control system modified Huang such it is configured to regulate the speeds of the motors based on environmental conditions that act differently on some of the solar panels than on others of the solar panels, as disclosed in Schimelpfenig, in order to control and regulate the speeds of the motors based on wind loads thereby improving the performance of the tracker.
Response to Arguments
The newly amended claims overcome the previous objection to claims 1 and 6 as set forth in Page 2 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 05/21/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/15/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Huang and Kroth fails to teach or suggest this feature because Kroth discloses only one GPS sensor and does not disclose sensors installed in each of the linear actuators.
Applicant argues that Kroth discloses a system for adjusting solar cell modules SZM including a plurality of control units, where each solar cell module SZM is controlled by a separate control unit MASE, SASE. One of the control units is a master control unit MASE and the other control units are slave control units SASE. The control units are connected to s GPS sensor.
Applicant argues that, “[a]s shown in the Figure, there is one GPS sensor connected to the entire system.”
Applicant further argues that Kroth does not teach or suggest sensors installed in each of the linear actuators and that Kroth also fails to teach or suggest that the drive units are activated based on a signal received from the motor.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claim recites “based on a signal received from one or more motors and/or from sensors installed in each of the linear actuators”. Accordingly, the limitation directed to “sensors” is disclosed in the alternative and not required by the claim.
With regards to applicant’s argument that Kroth also fails to teach or suggest that the drive units are activated based on a signal received from the motor, Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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).
In the instant case, Huang teaches each linear actuator (electric push rod 4) is activated by a corresponding motor (the push rods drive the main beam 1), wherein the control system (9) simultaneously activates each motor so that all the solar panels maintain the same orientation (“rotation of the main beam 1 is synchronously driven by a plurality of electric push rods 4”) [paragraphs 0029 and 0036].
Huang is silent to activating the motors of the linear actuators based on a signal received from one or more motors.
However, in Kroth, the drive systems are integrated with control units that are coupled with a GPS sensor or equivalent sensor [paras. 0007-0010, 0014 and 0018]. Accordingly, the drive systems are activated based on a signal received from the one ore more motors (e.g., from the GPS or equivalent sensor that is coupled to the integrated controller of each drive unit).
Examine notes that at least a sensor coupled to the motors sends a signal to activate the linear actuators. As the claim recites “sensors” in the alternative (the limitation follows the recitation “and/or”), the limitations of the claim are met.
With regards to new dependent claim 8, applicant argues that Kroth does not teach or suggest activating the drive unit AE based on a signal from one or more of the drive units. The same response as set forth above applies.
Applicant’s arguments regarding new dependent claim 9, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The claim previously recited “sensors” in the alternative. Accordingly, the scope of the claims has changed.
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 MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721