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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2, “it” should read --the photovoltaic support--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verenski et al. (US Pat. No. 5,615,968) in view of MacKenzie (US Pat. No. 3,851,983).
In regards to claim 1, Verenski teaches a connecting assembly capable of being used for connecting two adjacent main beam sections of a photovoltaic support, comprising: the main beam sections (45) define an axial direction and a width direction; an axial gap (at 10, Fig. 3) is formed between the two adjacent main beam sections; and the connecting assembly comprises two hoop members (50) tightly holding the two adjacent main beam sections from an upper side and a lower side, respectively, characterized in that the connecting assembly further comprises a limiting fastener (25); wherein the two hoop members each have an attaching wall (55) that is tightly attached to an upper surface and a lower surface of the two adjacent main beam sections, respectively, a through hole (57) distributed along the width direction is disposed on the attaching wall, and the limiting fastener is disposed to pass through the axial gap to connect the corresponding through holes of the two hoop members in a penetrating manner, so that the two hoop members clamp the two adjacent main beam sections from the upper side and the lower side, respectively.
Verenski does not teach a plurality of the limiting fasteners and plurality of through holes distributed along the width direction.
MacKenzie teaches a coupling for joining the ends of two beams (D and S), wherein the coupling includes a plurality of limiting fasteners (16, 17) and corresponding through holes (14, 15) distributed along the width direction on upper and lower sides.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Verenski’s assembly to include a plurality of the limiting fasteners and plurality of through holes distributed along the width direction as taught by Verenski. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing independent clamping to accommodate different dimensions as taught by MacKenzie (Col 2, Lines 38-46), and for providing adequate contact area when the shape of the couplers and beams are rectangular as recognized by Verenski (Col 5, Lines 20-31).
In regards to claim 2, in modifying Verenski, MacKenzie teaches two limiting fasteners (MacKenzie: 16, 17).
In regards to claim 3, modified Verenski teaches bolts (i.e.; a corresponding threaded shank 20 and nut 40 of Verenski).
In regards to claim 4, Verenski teaches the through hole (57) of each hoop member (50) is positioned on a centerline in the axial direction of the corresponding hoop member (i.e.; in the gap between the ends of the beams). In addition, the through holes (14, 15) of MacKenzie are aligned in the width direction. In modifying Verenski with MacKenzie, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Verenski’s assembly to have the line connecting the centers of the plurality of through holes of each hoop member being the centerline in the axial direction of the corresponding hoop member. The motivation would be for the purpose ensuring the limiting fasteners prevent either end of the inner coupling tube moving too far into either rail section as taught by Verenski (Col 5, Lines 2-9).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verenski et al. (US Pat. No. 5,615,968) and MacKenzie (US Pat. No. 3,851,983), and in further view of Katt (US Pat. No. 3,846,030).
In regards to claim 5, Verenski, modified by MacKenzie, does not teach each hoop member has a U-shaped hoop having a bottom wall and two side walls constituting a U shape, the bottom wall forming the attaching wall, each side wall having a distal end away from the bottom wall; two ear tabs extending from the distal ends of the two side walls along the width direction and away from each other, respectively, each ear tab being disposed with a plurality of connection holes distributed along the axial direction; wherein the two hoop members connect the corresponding connection holes of the two hoop members in a penetrating manner through connecting fasteners to tightly hold the two adjacent main beam sections from the upper side and the lower side, respectively.
Katt teaches hoop members (13, 14, Fig. 5) each having a U-shaped hoop having a bottom wall and two side walls constituting a U shape, the bottom wall forming the attaching wall, each side wall having a distal end away from the bottom wall; two ear tabs (15) extending from the distal ends of the two side walls along the width direction and away from each other, respectively, each ear tab being disposed with a plurality of connection holes (corresponding to bolts 16) distributed along the axial direction; wherein the two hoop members connect the corresponding connection holes of the two hoop members in a penetrating manner through connecting fasteners (16) to tightly hold the two adjacent main beam sections from the upper side and the lower side, respectively.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to further modify Verenski’s assembly such that each hoop member has a U-shaped hoop having a bottom wall and two side walls constituting a U shape, the bottom wall forming the attaching wall, each side wall having a distal end away from the bottom wall; two ear tabs extending from the distal ends of the two side walls along the width direction and away from each other, respectively, each ear tab being disposed with a plurality of connection holes distributed along the axial direction; wherein the two hoop members connect the corresponding connection holes of the two hoop members in a penetrating manner through connecting fasteners to tightly hold the two adjacent main beam sections from the upper side and the lower side, respectively. The motivation would be for the purpose of accommodating different shapes as taught by Katt (e.g.; in Figs. 2 and 5), such as a rectangular configuration as taught by Verenski (Col 5, Lines 20-24).
In regards to claim 6, in modifying Verenski, Katt teaches the plurality of connection holes of the ear tabs (Katt: 15) of each hoop member is distributed symmetrically relative to the axial centerline direction (i.e.; the centerline along 6, Fig. 5 of Katt).
In regards to claim 7, in modifying Verenski, Katt teaches the plurality of connection holes is an even number of connection holes (i.e.; four).
In regards to claim 8, modified Verenski does not teach connection holes and through holes having the same size. However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). In the instant case, the sizing of the holes would not perform a different clamping function than the prior art device since the function is merely to accommodate the fastener, and fasteners come in standard sizes. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to have the holes being the same size. The motivation would be for the purpose accommodating a standard sized fastener that is readily available.
In regards to claim 9, modified Verenski teaches a support capable of being used as a photovoltaic support (Verenski: Col 5, Lines 50-55) comprising two adjacent main beam sections (Verenski: 45), characterized in that it further comprises a connecting assembly according to claim 8, and the connecting assembly connects the two adjacent main beam sections.
In regards to claim 10, modified Verenski teaches each limiting fastener in the plurality of limiting fasteners of the connecting assembly abuts the end faces of the two adjacent main beam sections on both sides, respectively (i.e.; the presence of the studded knob 25 also acts to prevent either end of the inner coupling tube 10 from moving too far into either rail section 45; Col 5, Lines 2-9 of Verenski).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for a listing of prior art related to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631