DETAILED ACTION
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 and 11 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 a first main beam section of a photovoltaic support to a second main beam section of the photovoltaic support, the first main beam section (45) defining a first end and the second main beam section (45) defining a second end, the connecting assembly comprising: two hoop members (50) comprising an upper hoop member and a lower hoop member, the upper hoop member and the lower hoop member configured to couple the first main beam section to the second main beam section such that: a portion of the first main beam section and a portion of the second main beam section are captured between the upper hoop member and the lower hoop member (i.e.; the end portions); and the first end of the first main beam section and the second end of the second main beam section define an axial gap (at 10, Fig. 3); and a limiting fastener (25) extending through the axial gap, the limiting fastener configured to: apply a force to the upper hoop member and to the lower hoop member such that the upper and lower hoop members clamp the portion of the first main beam section and the portion of the second main beam section (Col 3, Lines 37-42). In addition, the clamping force applied by the hoops inherently prevents an angle deviation between the first end and the second end in response to a torque input.
Verenski does not teach the limiting fastener being a plurality of limiting fasteners. 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). In addition, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In this case, duplicating the number of limiting fasteners would have the predictable result of increasing the clamping force and the stability of the joint.
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 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, as modified by MacKenzie, Verenski teaches each upper hoop member and lower hoop member defines a respective plurality of holes (i.e.; duplicated 57 of Verenski), each hole of the plurality of holes configured to receive a corresponding limiting fastener (Verenski: 25). In addition, Verenski’s hole (57) is located at the centerline of each of the upper hoop member and the lower hoop member, the centerline transverse to an axial direction of each corresponding upper and lower hoop members (i.e.; define by the longitudinal direction of the gap). 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 respective plurality of holes are positioned along the centerline of each of the upper hoop member and the lower hoop member, the centerline transverse to an axial direction of each corresponding upper and lower hoop member. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing adequate contact area when the shape of the couplers and beams are rectangular as recognized by Verenski (Col 5, Lines 20-31). In other words, addition fasteners would be provided when the width of the beam sections are widened with a rectangular cross-section.
In regards to claim 11, Verenski teaches a photovoltaic support (i.e.; capable of being used as a photovoltaic support; Col 5, Lines 50-55) comprising: a first main beam section (45) defining a first end; a second main beam section (45) defining a second end; and a connecting assembly (5) comprising: an upper hoop member and a lower hoop member (each 50), the upper hoop member and the lower hoop member configured to couple the first main beam section to the second main beam section such that: a portion of the first main beam section and a portion of the second main beam section are captured between the upper hoop member and the lower hoop member; and the first end of the first main beam section and the second end of the second main beam section define an axial gap (at 10, Fig. 3); and a limiting fastener (25) extending through the axial gap, the limiting fastener configured to: apply a force to the upper hoop member and the lower hoop member such that the upper and lower hoop members clamp the portion of the first main beam section and the portion of the second main beam section (Col 3, Lines 37-42). In addition, the clamping force applied by the hoops inherently prevents an angle deviation between the first end and the second end in response to a torque input.
Verenski does not teach the limiting fastener being a plurality of limiting fasteners. 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). In addition, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). In this case, duplicating the number of limiting fasteners would have the predictable result of increasing the clamping force and the stability of the joint.
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 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).
Claims 5-8 and 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, teaches a bottom attaching wall configured to receive the plurality of fasteners (i.e.; defined between 53 of Verenski), bud does not teach each upper and lower hoop member defines a corresponding U-shaped hoop having a bottom wall and two side walls, each side wall defines a distal end away from the bottom wall; each upper and lower hoop member comprises two respective ear tabs defining a flanged face, each ear tab configured to abut an opposing ear tab; and the ear tabs define a corresponding plurality of connection holes distributed along an axial direction; wherein the upper and lower hoop members are coupled via connecting fasteners extending through a corresponding pair of connection holes.
Katt teaches hoop members (13, 14, Fig. 5) each defining a corresponding U-shaped hoop having a bottom wall and two side walls, the bottom wall forming an attaching wall; each side wall defines a distal end away from the bottom wall; each upper and lower hoop member comprises two respective ear tabs (15) defining a flanged face, each ear tab configured to abut an opposing ear tab; and the ear tabs define a corresponding plurality of connection holes (corresponding to bolts 16) distributed along an axial direction; wherein the upper and lower hoop members are coupled via connecting fasteners (16) extending through a corresponding pair of connection holes.
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 is shaped as a corresponding U-shaped hoop having a bottom wall and two side walls, each side wall defines a distal end away from the bottom wall; each upper and lower hoop member comprises two respective ear tabs defining a flanged face, each ear tab configured to abut an opposing ear tab; and the ear tabs define a corresponding plurality of connection holes distributed along an axial direction; wherein the upper and lower hoop members are coupled via connecting fasteners extending through a corresponding pair of connection holes. 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 corresponding plurality of connection holes of the ear tabs (Katt: 15) of each upper and lower hoop member is distributed symmetrically relative to a centerline transverse to an axial 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 have a common diameter. 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 a common diameter. The motivation would be for the purpose accommodating a standard sized fastener that is readily available.
In regards to claim 10, modified Verenski teaches each limiting fastener in the plurality of limiting fasteners of the connecting assembly abuts the first end of the first main beam section and the second end of the second main beam section (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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the clamp assembly 5 and limiting fastener 25 of Verenski are not configured to prevent an angle deviation between the first end and the second end in response to a torque input. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the clamping force applied by the hoop members via the limiting fastener would inherently provide prevention of an angle deviation between the first end and the second end in response to a torque input based on the upper limits of the clamping force. The point of angle deviation is dependent upon the amount of torque input applied to the joint. Examiner also recognizes that the clamp assembly 5 and coupling tube 10 cooperatively prevent angle deviation. Applicant’s claim does not exclude additional structural components for the connecting assembly.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In particular, Applicant argues MacKenzie’s fasteners do not extend through an axial gap. Verenski’s limiting fastener (25) extends through the axial gap, and the examiner is relying on the teaching of MacKenzie to duplicate the number of Verenski’s fasteners, particularly when using a rectangular cross-section for the hoop members.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the additional cited art that teaching a beam connection assembly (see Fig. 15).
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 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
Prosecution Insights