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 without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 1/5/2026) is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0146232) in view of Davis et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0083699) and West et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0246549) and .
Regarding Claim 1, Herrera teaches a method for automatic solar table assembling comprising ([0044]: automating part or all of the process):
unloading materials ([0052]: automated unload of materials);
attaching one or more brackets (Fig. 7A, 510) to the torque tube (Fig. 7A, 512) ([0090]: the process may include installing on the torque tubes … clamps);
installing one or more solar modules (Fig. 7A, 501) onto the one or more brackets (Fig. 7A, 510) to complete assembly for the solar table ([0090]: At 454, the solar modules are attached to torque tubes …); and
dispatching the assembled solar table from the table assembly station ([0069]: the field factory may be configured as an assembly line that is composed of one of more stations. A table assembly station would perform the operations (iii) and (iv).) to a transport vehicle directly ([0093]: AI-enabled automated forklifts, telehandlers).
Herrera does not explicitly teach feeding a torque tube from a torque tube dispenser into a table assembly station to initiate an assembly for a solar table, the torque tube comprises a plurality of bracket holes;
aligning the torque tube via axial and radial positioning to an angular orientation for brackets mounting;
Davis teaches feeding a torque tube (Fig. 5E, 559) from a torque tube dispenser (Fig. 5E, 554) into a table assembly station (Fig. 5E, 526) to initiate an assembly for a solar table ([0066], [0069]-[0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transfer a torque tube to the table assembly station of Herrera using a conveyor system as taught by Davis in order to automate the transfer process of torque tubes of different lengths as suggested in Davis [0069].
West teaches the torque tube (Fig. 13, 1321) comprises a plurality of bracket holes (Fig. 13, 1324) ([0065]: Such a torque tube may include, along its length, a row of slots such as slot 1324…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply U-lock/interlock system of West, using holes in the torque tube as taught by West in order to quickly and easily mount solar panels to a torque tube as suggested in West [0005].
Although West does not explicitly teach aligning the torque tube via axial and radial positioning to an angular orientation for brackets mounting, it would be at least obvious if not inherent to align the torque tube via axial and radial positioning to an angular orientation for bracket mounting in order to align a tab (1319) on the U-lock with a slot (1324) in the torque tube during their assembly process.
Regarding Claim 5, Herrera/Davis/West teach that the assembly solar table is manufactured in an assembly line (Herrera [0069]). Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to perform several different assembly operations in various workstations within an assembly line simultaneously. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform two different operations of attaching one or more brackets to a torque tube and installing one of more solar modules onto a torque tube in the method of Herrera/Davis/West in parallel in order to save manufacturing time.
Regarding Claim 8, Herrera/Davis/West teach the method of claim 1, wherein the assembled solar table (Davis Fig. 3, 300) is dispatched from the table assembly station (Davis Fig. 5A, 526 & 528) to the table delivery zone (Davis Fig. 5A, 506) for stacking onto a solar table rack (Davis Fig. 5A, 533 & 534) that is capable of holding multiple assembled solar tables (Davis [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the solar table rack of Davis to transfer the assembled solar table of Herrera in order improve efficiency in transportation of the assembled solar table as suggested in Davis [0121].
Regarding Claim 9, Herrera/Davis t/West teach the method of claim 8, wherein the solar table rack (Davis Fig. 5A, 533 & 534) is movable on a rack conveyor, once the solar table rack (Davis Fig. 5A, 535) is fully loaded, the solar table rack moves along the rack conveyor (Davis Fig. 5A, 516) to an unloading area for rack picking up by a transport vehicle (Davis Fig. 6, 600) for on-site installation (Davis [0057]). Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to interchangeably to use either a rail or a conveyor to transfer a workpiece in an assembly line. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ either a conveyor or rail system to transfer the solar table rack of Davis as both transfer systems would be effective in transferring the solar table rack.
Regarding Claim 10, Herrera/Davis t/West teach the method of claim 9, wherein the rack rail (Davis Fig. 5A, 514) is able to receive an empty solar table rack (Davis Fig. 5A, 531 & 532) for solar table re-loading (Davis [0057]: Unload queue 504 can be used to unload empty cassettes…).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are 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 JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 4/2/2026