DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/748,888, filed 6/20/2024.
Claims 1-8 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0124007 A1: Figs. 1-3 of this reference teach a truss adapter and a bearing housing in which a torque tube pivots. The bearing housing further comprises rotational stops.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0256046 A1: Figs. 1-4 of this reference teach a truss adapter with a pivot bolt.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0059826 A1: Figs. 5-12 of this reference teach a truss adapter with a bearing housing with an interior bushing and a locking system to retain the bearing housing on the top of the support post.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cherukupalli, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0076357 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Cherukupalli teaches an assembly for a truss foundation (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0024]-[0030]).
The assembly comprises a truss adapter 152 having a pair of connecting portions 161 (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
The assembly comprises a bridge portion (corresponding to the indicated region of item 152 in the inset below), and a first pair of parallel flanges 191 and 199 extending above the bridge portion (indicated in the inset below).
The assembly comprises a bearing assembly, corresponding to housing 164 and inner region 178 (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]) forming a bearing and having a bushing (i.e. lining 186, paragraph [0028]) rotatably supported therein.
The assembly comprises a second pair of parallel flanges 193 and 201 extending from an outer surface of the bearing (paragraph [0027]).
The assembly comprises a pair of pivot bolts 189 and 187 passing through the respective ones of the first and second pairs of flanges to enable the bearing assembly (i.e. a portion of the bearing assembly, e.g. items 178) to pivot with respect to the truss adapter 152 (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
731
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “to enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the truss adapter” is considered an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0158017 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Hu teaches an assembly for a truss foundation (Figs. 27-28, paragraphs [0096]-[0099]).
The assembly comprises a truss adapter 216 having a pair of connecting portions (indicated in the inset below), a bridge portion 522/524 (paragraph [0098]), and a first pair of parallel flanges 528 extending above the bridge portion 522/524.
The assembly comprises a bearing assembly 516/518 forming a bearing and having a bushing 530 rotatably supported therein (paragraphs [0096]-[0099]), and a second pair of parallel flanges 528 extending from an outer surface of the bearing.
Hu teaches that the bearing brackets of his invention are secured to each other by bolts (paragraph [0081]).
Therefore, Figs. 27-28 of Hu teach that the assembly comprises a pair of pivot bolts passing through the respective ones of the first and second pairs of flanges to enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the truss adapter (paragraphs [0096]-[0099]).
It is noted that “to enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the truss adapter” is considered an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
PNG
media_image2.png
517
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 2, Figs. 27-28 teach that the bearing assembly further comprises a pair of rotational stops that limit an extent of rotation of the bushing within the bearing, indicated in the inset below.
These structures form “rotational stops,” because they form structural limits to the extent to which bushing protrusion 534 can rotate within the bearing.
PNG
media_image3.png
422
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 6, Hu teaches a truss bearing adapter for a terrain following single-axis tracker, i.e. a truss bearing adapter for a single axis solar tracker (Figs. 1 and 19-21, paragraphs [0065] and [0088]-[0090]). Fig. 1 shows that the tracker “follows” a “terrain,” because it is taught to be disposed on the ground.
The truss bearing adapter comprises a first portion 278 having a pair of connecting portions angled apart from one another (indicated in the inset below).
The truss bearing adapter comprises a first concave spheroid bearing section 268 (paragraph [0088], indicated in the inset below).
The truss bearing adapter comprises a second portion 268 having a second concave spheroid bearing section (paragraph [0088], indicated in the inset below).
Hu teaches that the first portion attaches to the second portion to define a spheroid bearing opening (Fig. 19, paragraph [0088]).
The truss bearing adapter comprises a spherical bushing 222 comprising a pair of spherically-shaped halves 258, 260 that sit in the spheroid bearing opening, the bushing having a central passage matching a cross sectional shape of a tracker torque tube 218 and enabling the torque tube to pass through the spheroid bearing opening (paragraph [0088]).
It is the Examiner’s position that, because Hu teaches the bearing structure of Claim 6, the bearing structure of Hu is structurally capable of operating in the manner required by Claim 6.
It is noted that “for a terrain following single-axis tracker” and “enabling the torque tube to pass through the spheroid bearing opening at a plurality of different angles relative to perpendicular to the spheroid bearing opening while retaining the ability to rotate within the spheroid bearing opening” are intended use limitations of the claim.
PNG
media_image4.png
765
695
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Worden, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0234501 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Worden teaches an assembly for a truss foundation (Figs. 9 and 16, paragraphs [0057]-[0062] and [0072]).
The assembly of Worden comprises a truss adapter 78 having a pair of connecting portions 84 and 85 (Fig. 9, paragraph [0061]), a bridge portion (indicated in the inset below), and a first pair of parallel flanges extending above the bridge portion (indicated in the inset below).
The assembly of Worden comprises a bearing assembly forming a bearing (paragraph [0057]) and having a bushing (paragraph [0057]) rotatably supported therein,
The assembly of Worden comprises a second pair of parallel flanges (indicated in the inset below) extending from an outer surface of the bearing.
The assembly of Worden comprises a pair of pivot bolts 91-92 passing through the respective ones of the first and second pairs of flanges to enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the truss adapter.
PNG
media_image5.png
609
999
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Au, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0001356 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Au teaches an assembly for a truss foundation (Figs. 54-55, paragraphs [0145]-[0149]).
The assembly of Au comprises a truss adapter having a pair of connecting portions (corresponding to the connecting bolts indicated in the inset below), a bridge portion (indicated in the inset below).
The assembly of Au comprises a first pair of parallel flanges extending above the bridge portion (indicated in the inset below).
The assembly of Au comprises a bearing assembly, corresponding to the pivot pin, the sleeve that it is disposed in, and the openings in the U-bolt clamps through which the pin extends (Figs. 55A-E, paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, the assembly comprises a bearing assembly forming a bearing and having a bushing (i.e. the sleeve) rotatably supported therein.
The assembly of Au comprises a second pair of parallel flanges extending from an outer surface of the bearing (indicated in the inset below).
The assembly of Au comprises a pair of pivot bolts (i.e. the U-bolts shown in Figs. 55A-e) passing through the respective ones of the first and second pairs of flanges to enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the truss adapter.
PNG
media_image6.png
648
870
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “to enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the truss adapter” is considered an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 2, Au teaches that the bearing assembly further comprises a pair of rotational stops (indicated in the inset below) that limit an extent of rotation of the bushing within the bearing. This limitation is shown in Fig. 55.
PNG
media_image7.png
594
487
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “limit an extent of rotation of the bushing within the bearing” is considered an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 3, Au teaches an assembly for a truss foundation (Figs. 54-55, paragraphs [0145]-[0149]).
The assembly of Au comprises a truss adapter having a pair of connecting portions, a bridge portion, and concave recess at an approximate center of the bridge portion, all of which are indicated in the inset below.
The assembly of Au comprises a bearing assembly, corresponding to the pivot pin, the sleeve that it is disposed in, and the openings in the U-bolt clamps through which the pin extends (Figs. 55A-E, paragraph [0149]).
Therefore, the assembly comprises a bearing assembly forming a bearing and having a bushing (i.e. the sleeve) rotatably supported therein.
The assembly of Au comprises a pair of parallel flanges extending away from the bearing, indicated in the inset below.
The assembly of Au comprises a pair of U bolts extending around the bridge portion (i.e. disposed on either side of the bridge portion) and through the pair of pair of parallel flanges to secure the bearing assembly to the bridge portion.
PNG
media_image8.png
705
867
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 4, the inset below teaches that the bearing assembly further comprises a pair of rotational stops that limit an extent of rotation of the bushing within the bearing. This limitation is shown in Fig. 55.
PNG
media_image7.png
594
487
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “limit an extent of rotation of the bushing within the bearing” is considered an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 5, Figs. 54-55 teach that a curved surface of the bearing fits in the concave recess (i.e. is disposed in the concave recess).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0158017 A1), in view of Corio (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0254740 A1).
In reference to Claim 7, Hu does not teach that the truss adapter further comprises a lock ring surrounding the torque tube and fitting within the bushing.
To solve the same problem of providing a bearing system for a sun-tracking solar array, Corio teaches a bearing structure comprising a bearing system in which an inner bushing layer 374 comprises rotational stop protrusions 364 that extend through openings in an outer bushing ring 367 during rotation of the torque tube (Figs. 12-13, paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Corio further teaches that this structure provides the benefit of engaging the bearing housing when the desired rotational limit is achieved (paragraph [0084]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the bearing structure of Hu to comprise the double-layered bushing structure of Corio, in which the inner bushing layer comprises protrusions that engage openings in the outer bushing layer, to provide the benefit of limiting rotational movement of the inner torque tube.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the truss adapter further comprises a lock ring (corresponding to the inner bushing ring of Corio, comprising the protrusions) surrounding the torque tube and fitting within the bushing (as shown in Figs. 12-13 of Corio).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the lock ring comprises a pair of stops (i.e. the protrusions taught by Corio) that engage the second portion (i.e. the top portion of the bearing housing, as shown in Fig. 12 of Corio) to limit an extent of torque tube rotation in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions (paragraph [0084] of Corio).
It is noted that “to limit an extent of torque tube rotation in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions” is considered an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2pm 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, 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721