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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/12/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous rejection under 112(b) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 11, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0373882 to Watson (included in Applicant’s 1/6/2026 IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 6-8, Watson teaches a system for mounting photovoltaic (PV) modules 12 to a torque tube 14, the system comprising
A mounting rail 102 configured to be secured to a PV module 12 (Figs. 1-3, ¶0044, 0046, 0047)
A first strap 104 having a proximal end 104a, a distal end 104b, and a rectangular cross-sectional shape (the dashed double-arrow of Marked-up Fig. 3 below denotes a portion of strap 104 that will have a rectangular cross-sectional shape) such that the first strap includes a shorter edge (part of 146, overlaid with dark lines in Marked-up Fig. 4 below) that defines a thickness of the first strap, and a longer edge (overlaid with grey doodle in Marked-up Fig. 4) that defines a width of the first strap (¶0052-0054), wherein the first strap is oriented such that at least a portion of the shorter edge of the first strap is configured to interface with the torque tube 14 (¶0045, 0055), and wherein the proximal end of the first strap is coupled to the mounting rail 102 and the distal end includes a connecting portion 158
A second strap 106 having a proximal end 106a, a distal end 106b, and a rectangular cross-sectional shape (the dashed double-arrow of Marked-up Fig. 3 below denotes a portion of strap 106 that will have a rectangular cross-sectional shape) such that the first strap includes a shorter edge (part of 148, overlaid with dark lines in Marked-up Fig. 4 below) that defines a thickness of the first strap, and a longer edge (overlaid with grey doodle in Marked-up Fig. 4) that defines a width of the second strap, wherein the second strap is oriented such that at least a portion of the shorter edge of the second strap is configured to interface with the torque tube 14 (¶0045, 0055), and wherein the proximal end of the second strap is coupled to the mounting rail 102 and the distal end includes a connecting portion 160
A fastener 156 that couples the connecting portion 158 of the first strap 104 to the connecting portion 160 of the second strap 106 (¶0056).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
350
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Longer edge)]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shorter edge)]
PNG
media_image2.png
184
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 3, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 1. The connecting portion 158 of the first strap 104 is shaped such that three edges of the connecting portion are configured to interface with a head of the fastener 156 (158 has three edges corresponding to the portions of the U-shape, a skilled artisan would understand that fastener 156 is physically confined by the three edges).
Per claim 6, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 1. The proximal ends 104a, 106a of the first and second straps 104, 106 individually define a hole (seen best in Fig. 2A) configured to receive a pin (not labeled in Figs. 2A, 3) and the mounting rail 102 defines a hole (not specifically shown in Fig. 2A) corresponding to each of the holes defined in the proximal ends of the first strap and the second strap.
The system further includes a first pin (not specifically labeled in Fig. 2A) configured to be inserted into the holes defined in the proximal end 104a of the first strap 104 and the mounting rail 102 and a second pin (also not specifically labeled) configured to be inserted into the holes defined in the proximal end 106a of the second strap 106 and the mounting rail (¶0047).
Per claim 7, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 1. The fastener 156 is a bolt (¶0055).
Per claim 8, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 1. The connecting portion 158 of the first strap 104 and the connecting portion 160 of the second strap 106 includes a width (up-down dimension of Fig. 4). The limitation that the width is determined based on an amount of compression force applied by the fastener on the connecting portions of the first and second straps is a product-by-process limitation. In other words, the claim does not recite a measurable compressive force or tolerance to compressive force, which would be interpreted as a structural property. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 15, and 16, Watson teaches a system for mounting photovoltaic (PV) modules 12 to a torque tube 14, the system comprising
A mounting rail 102 configured to be secured to a PV module 12 (Figs. 1-3, ¶0044, 0046, 0047)
A first strap 104 having a first end (one side of 104a), a second end (second side of 104a), and a rectangular cross-sectional shape (the dashed double-arrow of Marked-up Fig. 3 above denotes a portion of strap 104 that will have a rectangular cross-sectional shape) such that the first strap includes a shorter edge (part of 146, overlaid with dark lines in Marked-up Fig. 4 above) that defines a thickness of the first strap, and a longer edge (overlaid with grey doodle in Marked-up Fig. 4) that defines a width of the first strap, wherein the first strap includes one or more bends (proximate 158) forming a first connecting portion 158 between the first and second ends, and wherein the first and second ends are secured to the mounting rail 102 (¶0045, 0052-0055)
A first strap 104 having a first end (one side of 104a), a second end (second side of 104a), and a rectangular cross-sectional shape (the dashed double-arrow of Marked-up Fig. 3 above denotes a portion of strap 104 that will have a rectangular cross-sectional shape) such that the first strap includes a shorter edge (part of 146, overlaid with dark lines in Marked-up Fig. 4 above) that defines a thickness of the first strap, and a longer edge (overlaid with grey doodle in Marked-up Fig. 4) that defines a width of the second strap, wherein the second strap includes one or more bends (proximate 160) forming a second connecting portion 160 between the first and second ends, and wherein the first and second ends are secured to the mounting rail 102 (¶0045, 0052-0055)
A fastener 156 that couples the first connecting portion 158 to the second connecting portion 160, such that in a coupled configuration, the first and second straps 104, 106 form torque tube clamps and are configured to secure the mounting rail 102 to a torque tube 14 (¶0056).
Per claim 11, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 10. Each of the first and second connecting portions 158, 160 seat the fastener 156 interfaces with three edges of each of the first and second connecting portions (158, 160 has three edges corresponding to the portions of the respective U-shape, a skilled artisan would understand that fastener 156 is physically confined by the three edges).
Per claim 15, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 10. The first ends and second ends (sides of 104a) of each of the first strap 104 and the second strap 106 each defines a hole (seen best in Fig. 2A) configured to receive a pin (not labeled in Figs. 2A, 3) and the mounting rail 102 defines a hole (not specifically shown in Fig. 2A) corresponding to each of the holes defined in the first and second ends of the of the first strap and the second strap.
The system further includes a first pin (not specifically labeled in Fig. 2A) configured to be inserted into the holes defined in the first and second ends of the first strap 104 and the mounting rail 102 and a second pin (also not specifically labeled) configured to be inserted into the holes defined in the first and second ends of the second strap 106 and the mounting rail (¶0047).
Per claim 16, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 10. The limitation that a width of a longer edge of the first and second connecting portions is determined based on an amount of compression force applied by the fastener on the connecting portions of the first and second straps is a product-by-process limitation. In other words, the claim does not recite a measurable compressive force or tolerance to compressive force, which would be interpreted as a structural property. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 1. While it is unclear if the first strap and the second strap are integrally formed, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to integrally form those elements. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0294386 to Creasy (of record).
Regarding claim 4, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 1. The connecting portions 158, 160 of the respective first and second straps 104, 106 include a hole to seat the fastener 156 (Figs. 4, 5). While Watson does not teach the inclusion of embossed features configured to seat the fastener. Creasy teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include embossed features in the respective connecting portions, as they are shown as alternative structures or additions for seating a fastener (compare elements 1838, 1848 across Figs. 20C, 20D, for instance, ¶0100, 0107, 0108). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2023/0402963 to Yadlapalli (of record).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 10. The fastener 156 is a bolt that includes a proximal end (head of the bolt, on the left of Fig. 5) and a distal end (threaded portion, on the right). Watson does not teach that the fastener is a T-bolt, the proximal end being substantially perpendicular to the distal end. Yadlapalli teaches a similar mounting system comprising opposed connecting portions (lower portion in Fig. 7) functioning to secure a mounting rail to a torque tube, wherein connecting portions are joined by a fastener (Fig. 8) that is a T-bolt, having a proximal end (60a) and a threaded distal end (60b), the proximal end being substantially perpendicular to the distal end (¶0079-0081). The T-bolt connects the analogous first connecting portion and second connecting portion, the distal end of the T-bolt seated by an analogous second connecting portion and the proximal end received in a first hole and second hole ("eye" in the cited text). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the fastener as a T-bolt and to configure the first and second connecting portions to receive the T-bolt in order to securely the straps and mounting rail to a torque tube without rotation or translation (¶0069, 0083).
Per claim 13, Watson teaches the limitations of claim 12. The first strap 104 and the second strap 106 rotate about the first and second ends 104a, 106a of the first strap and the second strap, respectively, and the T-bolt of modified-Watson is capable of rotating about an axis running through both the first and second holes (the cited passages of Yadlapalli clearly teach that the eyes allow for the bolt 60 to rotate). The limitation that the T-bolt has a stored and an engaged configuration is an intended use limitation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 15, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN209218014U, AU2020101469A4, 2020101925A4, CN209151057U.
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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights