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 in the reply filed on 12/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Thank you for the clarification regarding claim dependency.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 18-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1-17 are examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, an opening in the torque tube with the first and second vertical members rotated to reside within the opening (see claim 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 5, 11 and 13 are 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 5 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the meets and bounds of “substantially equal” is not defined. Regarding claim 11, the meets and bounds of “substantially consistent” is not defined.
Regarding claim 13, the subject matter of claim 13, i.e., an opening in the torque tube and the vertical members rotated into the opening during shipping is not disclosed in the specification and is therefore indefinite as one skilled in the art would not be able to understand the requirement.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1, 3-6, 8, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. (US 2015/020062) in view of Reed et al. (US 2015/0059827) (hereafter Reed2).
Regarding claim 1, Reed discloses a module mounting assembly for coupling a solar module to a torque tube (see abstract and para [0002]), the module mounting assembly comprising:
a hat rail (lower brace 29, i.e., generally U-shaped transverse structural member) having a top rail surface (31), a bottom rail opening (no identifier, shown in fig. 2), opposing side rail surfaces (sidewalls 33, same identifier used for both side rail surfaces), first connection points and second connection points (support shoulders 53) (shown in fig. 2, para [0024]-[0029]);
a first vertical member (one of two straps 49) pivotably coupled to the hat rail (lower brace 29) at the first connection points (one of two shoulder supports 53), the first vertical member capable of being pivoted to rest flush on the first tube side surface of the torque tube during installation (shown in fig. 2, see para [0028]-[0029]), (the first vertical member having one or more first retention features (one of two fastener section 73 and one of two fastener hole 77) (shown in figs. 4-7see para [0036]-[0037]);
a second vertical member (second of two straps 49) pivotably coupled to the hat rail (lower brace 29) at the second connection points (second of two shoulder supports 53), the second vertical member capable of being pivoted to rest flush on the second tube side surface of the torque tube during installation (shown in fig. 2, see para [0028]-[0029]). the second vertical member having one or more second retention features (second of two fastener section 73 and second of two fastener hole 77) (shown in figs. 4-7, see para [0036]-[0037]);
a locking mechanism (fastener 51) configured to cooperate with the one or more first retention features and the one or more second retention features to prevent the first vertical member and the second vertical member from pivoting to secure the first vertical member flush on the first tube side surface of the torque tube and to secure the second vertical member flush on the second tube side surface of the torque tube (shown in fig. 5, see para [0028] and [0038]-[0039]).
Reed does not disclose wherein the first vertical member and the second vertical member are flush with the torque tube.
Reed2 is analogous art to Reed as Reed2 discloses a mounting assembly to secure a photovoltaic module to a torque tube via a strap (see para [0024]). Reed2 discloses wherein the strap (reads on a first and second vertical member analogous to Reed) is flush against the torque tube (see para [0024]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the strap (first and second vertical members) of Reed to be flush against the torque tube by combining prior art elements (the strap of Reed and the strap of Reed2) according to known methods (to sit flush against the torque tube as disclosed by Reed2), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a secure mounting assembly). See MPEP § 2143.
The statements in the preamble, “the torque tube having a top tube surface, a first side tube surface, a second side tube surface opposing the first side tube surface, and a bottom surface” have been evaluated and are considered intended use as the statements do not recite any structure pertaining to the mounting assembly. The mounting assembly configured to connect a photovoltaic module to a torque tube recited in the preamble is considered to be structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claim 3, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the first connection points (shoulder support 53) are disposed on the opposing side rail surfaces (33, also identified as 31) at a first position along a length of the hat rail (shown in figs. 2 and 3, see para [0024], [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 3, wherein the second connection points (shoulder support 53) are disposed on the opposing side rail surfaces (33 in para [0024], also identified as 31 in para [0029]) at a second position along a length of the hat rail (brace 29) (shown in figs. 2 and 3, see para [0024], [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 4, wherein a distance between the first position and the second position is substantially equal to a width between the first side tube surface and the second side tube surface (shown in fig. 8). It is the examiner’s position that the distance meets the criteria of “substantially”.
Regarding claim 6, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 5, wherein the first connection points and the second connection points include rail holes (see para [0029]-[0030] and [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the first vertical member includes a flat surface configured to rest flush against the first tube side surface of the torque tube after installation (see Reed2 para [0024]) (see obviousness discussion of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 1.
The limitation that the torque tube includes an opening in the bottom surface is directed to structure that is not part of the module mounting and is not examined.
The limitation that the first vertical member and the second vertical member can be pivoted to at least partially reside within the opening during transport is intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Reed is able to perform the intended use.
Regarding claim 14, Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more first retention features of the first vertical member include a notch (lip 79) and retention tabs 73/75) (see para [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more second retention features of the second vertical member include a window (77) (see para [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 1, wherein the locking mechanism includes a locking bolt and a locking nut (shown in fig. 8, see para [0038]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 16, wherein the locking bolt (51) is sufficiently long to couple the first vertical member (49) and the second vertical member (49) across the bottom surface of the torque tube (shown in fig. 8, i.e., bolt and nut (51) is shown coupling the vertical members (49) and therefore is sufficiently long to do so. see para [0028] and [0038]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. and Reed et al. (Reed2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rodriquez Gonzalez et al. (US 2023/0223891).
Regarding claim 2, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the hat rail includes an omega beam.
Gonzalez is analogous art to Reed as Gonzalez discloses a mounting assembly mounting a photovoltaic module on a torque tube (see abstract). Gonzalez discloses wherein an omega shaped bean is a conventional means for supporting and attaching solar modules to a torque tube (see para [0012]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., an Omega shaped beam of Gonzalez) for another known device (i.e., the beam of Reed), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a support beam for attaching the photovoltaic module to a torque tube). See MPEP § 2143.
Claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. and Reed et al. (Reed2) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Watson et al. (US 2023/0261610).
Regarding claim 7, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 6, discloses wherein the first vertical member is pivotably coupled to the hat rail (shown in figs. 5-6, see para [0038]).
Reed does not disclose that at the first connection points, the first vertical member is pivotably connected using a coupling bolt and coupling nut.
Watson is analogous art to Reed as Watson discloses a mounting assembly for mounting a photovoltaic module to a torque tube (see abstract). Watson discloses a mounting assembly comprising a rail (102), a first vertical member and a second vertical member (first and second braces 104 and 106) (shown in fig. 3, see para [0054]). Watson discloses wherein the first vertical member (104 or 106) is pivotably attached through a connection point to the rail (102) using a bolt and nut (see para [0054]-[0055]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (pivotably connected via a bolt and nut as disclosed by Watson) for another known device (the pivot connection of Reed), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., the vertical members pivotably connected to the rail). See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 9, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first vertical member includes side extensions.
Watson is analogous art to Reed (see discussion of claim 7). Watson discloses wherein the first vertical member (104 or 106) includes side extensions (i.e., first vertical member, brace 104 or 106, are U-shape forming channel 152 or 154) (shown in fig. 3, see para [0054]-[0055]).
The limitation that the side extensions are to increase rigidity of the first vertical member is intended use and is given weight to the extent the prior art is able to perform the intended use. Watson is able to perform the intended use.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., the u-shaped brace forming a vertical member as disclosed by Watson) for another known device (i.e., the strap forming a vertical member as disclosed by Reed), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a vertical member to clamp the torque tube). See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 10, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 9, wherein the side extensions include a top segment with coupling holes configured to cooperate with the hat rail (Watson 102) at the first connection points (shown in Watson fig. 3, see para [0054]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 10, wherein the first vertical member includes a substantially consistent width (shown in Reed figs. 3 and 6, see para [0028]-[0029] and shown in Watson figs. 3 and 4, see para [0055]). It is the examiner’s position that the first member of Reed as modified by Watson meets the limitation “substantially”.
Regarding claim 12, modified Reed discloses a module mounting assembly of claim 10, wherein the first vertical member (brace 104 or 106) has a strut-coupling segment (end area 104b or 106b) and further comprising a supporting strut (108 or 110) that is coupled to the strut-coupling segment and to the hat rail at third connection points (shown in figs. 2A-9, see para [0052], generally para [0047]-[0055]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., the brace and strut of Watson and the strap of Reed) according to known methods (as disclosed by Watson), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a secure mounting assembly).
Modified Reed does not disclose that the portion connecting to the strut is wider than the top segment (the portion connecting to the rail), The width of the two segments, and therefore the ratio, is a result effective variable as each segment must be a width to interact with the strut and rail.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De La Fuente De Pablo et al. (US 2022/0325736); Creasy et al. (US 2022/0271706), Mazzetti et al. (US 2022/0193927), Corio (US 2017/0359017), Molina et al. (US 2017/0229998).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721