DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/925,983, filed 10/24/2024, which is a continuation of 18/748,888, filed 6/20/2024, which claims priority to provisional application 63/522,056, filed 6/20/2023.
Claims 1-12 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0174295 A1: This reference teaches a bearing adapter for a solar tracker (Fig. 2).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0076360 A1: This reference teaches a bearing adapter for a solar tracker (Figs. 3-4).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0290716 A1: This reference teaches a bearing adapter for a solar tracker (Figs. 1-2).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0059826 A1: This reference teaches a bearing adapter for a solar tracker (Figs. 5-11).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0240006 A1: This reference teaches a bearing adapter for a solar tracker (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0076354 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, West teaches an assembly for a truss foundation (Figs. 6A-B, paragraphs [0068]-[0070]).
The assembly comprises a truss adapter 400 (Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
The truss adapter 400 has a pair of connecting portions (corresponding to the holes in item 420 and bolts disposed in these holes that connect items 420 and 410, Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]) a bridge portion 410 (Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Fig. 6A teaches that the bridge portion 410 has two pairs of opposing channels formed in the bridge portion, corresponding to the holes through which bolts 417 extend (paragraph [0069]).
The assembly of West comprises a bearing assembly forming a bearing and having a bushing 470 rotatably supported therein (Fig. 6B, paragraph [0070]).
The assembly of West comprises adapter plates 416 on opposing surfaces of the bridge portion 410 (Fig. 6A, paragraph [0069]).
The assembly of West comprises and bolts 417 extending through the adapter plates and in the two pairs of opposing channels.
West further teaches that there are bolts extending to the bearing assembly to secure the bearing assembly to the bridge portion (Figs. 6A-B, paragraph [0048]).
West teaches that item 480 is a torque tube (paragraph [0070]), and that the bearing assembly is adjustably mounted to the mounting plate 420, allowing adjustments in the height and East-West directions (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure of West teach that the “bolts…secure the bearing assembly to the bridge portion and enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the bridge portion.”
It is noted that “for a truss foundation” and “enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the bridge portion” are intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
In reference to Claim 2, West teaches that item 480 is a torque tube (paragraph [0070]), and that the bearing assembly is adjustably mounted to the mounting plate 420, allowing adjustments in the height and East-West directions (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches that the bearing assembly is adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion.
It is noted that “adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 3, because West teaches that the adaptor 400 is fitted onto the truss legs via the channels through which bolts 417 pass (paragraph [0069]), it is the Examiner’s position that the two pairs of opposing channels permit the adjustability to different pitches.
It is noted that “permit the adjustability to different pitches” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 4, West teaches that item 480 is a torque tube (paragraph [0070]), and that the bearing assembly is adjustably mounted to the mounting plate 420, allowing adjustments in the height and East-West directions (paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches that the bearing assembly is adjustable to different yaw positions about the bridge portion.
It is noted that “adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 5, because West teaches that the adaptor 400 is fitted onto the truss legs via the channels through which bolts 417 pass (paragraph [0069]), it is the Examiner’s position that the two pairs of opposing channels permit the adjustability to different yaw positions.
It is noted that “permit the adjustability to different yaw positions” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 10, Fig. 6A teaches that the bolts include four bolts (i.e. at least four bolts).
Claims 1-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hausner, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0256046 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Hausner teaches an assembly for a truss foundation (Figs. 7-10, paragraphs [0058]-[0066]).
The assembly comprises a truss adapter 22/26 (Figs. 9-10, paragraphs [0058]-[0061]).
The truss adapter 22/23 has a pair of connecting portions (i.e. the holes through which bolts 31 extend, Fig. 9, paragraph [0060]) a bridge portion 23 (Figs. 9-10, paragraphs [0059]-[0066]).
Fig. 9 teaches that the bridge portion 23 has two pairs of opposing channels (i.e. 35 and the holes through which bolts 31 extend) formed in the bridge portion (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
The assembly of Hausner comprises a bearing assembly 25 forming a bearing and having a bushing 39 rotatably supported therein (Figs. 8 and 10, paragraphs [0061] and [0063]-[0065]).
The assembly of Hausner comprises adapter plates 35 on opposing surfaces of the bridge portion 23 (i.e. opposing sides, Figs. 9-10, paragraphs [0061]- [0064]).
The assembly of Hausner comprises and bolts 37 and 31 extending through the adapter plates 35 and in the two pairs of opposing channels (i.e. the channels through which bolts 37 and 31 extend, Figs. 9-10).
Hausner further teaches that bolts 37 and 38 extend to the bearing assembly 25 to secure the bearing assembly to the bridge portion (Fig. 10, paragraphs [0064-[0066]).
Hausner further taches that the bearing assembly pivots with respect to the bridge portion (paragraphs [0064]-[0065]).
This disclosure teaches that the “bolts…secure the bearing assembly to the bridge portion and enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the bridge portion.”
It is noted that “for a truss foundation” and “enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the bridge portion” are intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 2, Hausner teaches that the bearing assembly is adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion (paragraphs [0064]-[0065]).
It is noted that “adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 3, because Hausner teaches that the bearing assembly is adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion around bolts 37/38 (paragraphs [0064]-[0065]), it is the Examiner’s position that the two pairs of opposing channels permit the adjustability to different pitches.
It is noted that “permit the adjustability to different pitches” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 4, Hausner teaches that slots 30 (which are part of the “channels” of Claim 1) allow item 23 to be transversely and longitudinally, relative to a support post 1 (paragraph [0060]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the bearing assembly 25 (which is held within item 23) is adjustable to different yaw positions about the bridge portion.
It is noted that “adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the two pairs of opposing channels permit the adjustability to different yaw positions.
It is noted that “permit the adjustability to different yaw positions” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 11, Fig. 9 teaches that the bolts are secured with nuts.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0039610 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Schneider teaches an assembly for a truss foundation (Figs. 3A-B, paragraphs [0069]-[0102]).
The assembly of Schneider comprises a truss adapter 150/170/182 (Figs. 12-15, paragraphs [0028] and [0019]-[0025]) having a pair of connecting portions (i.e. the two slots 22a-b) and a bridge portion 21.
Figs. 3A-B teach that the bridge portion 21 has two pairs of opposing channels 30a-b formed in the bridge portion (paragraph [0028]).
The assembly of Schneider comprises a bearing assembly 24a-b and 28a-b (Figs. 3A-B, paragraphs [0020]-[0021] and [0025]) forming a bearing and having a bushing 25 rotatably supported therein (Figs. 3A-B, paragraphs [0023]-[0024]).
The assembly of Schneider comprises adapter plates 29 and 23 on opposing surfaces of the bridge portion 21 (i.e. on left and right surfaces of the bridge portion 21, Figs. 3A-B, paragraphs [0028] and [0020]).
The assembly of Schneider comprises bolts 37 and 34 extending through the adapter plates 29/23, in the two pairs of opposing channels 30a/b, and to the bearing assembly 24a-b to secure the bearing assembly 24/28 to the bridge portion 21 (Figs. 3A-B, paragraphs [0028] and [0020]).
Fig. 3A teaches that the bearing assembly portion 28a/b can pivot with respect to the bridge portion 21.
Therefore, Schneider teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the “bolts…secure the bearing assembly to the bridge portion and enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the bridge portion.”
It is noted that “for a truss foundation” and “enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the bridge portion” are intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 6, Figs. 3A-B of Schneider teach that the adapter plates 23/29 comprise upper 23 and lower 29 adapter plates.
In reference to Claim 8, Figs. 3A-B teach that the upper adapter plate 23 has a curved lower surface to match a cross section of the bridge portion 21 (i.e. line up with a width of the bridge portion 21).
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ros Ruiz, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0347859 A1), in view of Gillis, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0344330 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Ros Ruiz teaches an assembly for a truss foundation (Figs. 2-9, paragraphs [0032]-[0046]).
The assembly of Ros Ruiz comprises a truss adapter 29/30 having a pair of connecting portions 31 and 32 and a bridge portion 33/34 (Figs. 7-8, paragraphs [0033]-[0035]).
Ros Ruiz teaches that the bridge portion 33/34 has two pairs of opposing channels 35/36 formed in the bridge portion (Figs. 7-8, paragraph [0033]).
The assembly of Ros Ruiz comprises a bearing assembly 4/5/6 forming a bearing and having a bushing 52 rotatably supported therein (Figs. 8-9, paragraphs [0038]-[0040] and [0043]).
The assembly of Ros Ruiz comprises adapter plates 15/23 and 16/24 on opposing surfaces (i.e. opposing sides) of the bridge portion 33/34 (Fig. 8, paragraph [0039]).
The assembly of Ros Ruiz comprises connectors 8 extending through the adapter plates 15/23 and 16/24, in the two pairs of opposing channels 35/36, and to the bearing assembly 9 (i.e. because the adapter plates are part of the bearing assembly portion 4, Fig. 8) to secure the bearing assembly 4/5/6 to the bridge portion 33/34 (paragraph [0039]).
Ros Ruiz does not teach that these connectors are bolts. Instead, he teaches that they are screws (paragraph [0039]).
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic panel support system, Gillis teaches that connections between support structures for photovoltaic arrays may be suitably made with screws and nut and bolt pairs (paragraph [0061]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used bolts instead of screws as the connectors 8 of Ros Ruiz, based on the disclosure of Gillis.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the assembly comprises bolts 8 extending through the adapter plates 15/23 and 16/24, in the two pairs of opposing channels 35/36, and to the bearing assembly 9 (i.e. because the adapter plates are part of the bearing assembly portion 4, Fig. 8) to secure the bearing assembly 4/5/6 to the bridge portion 33/34 (paragraph [0039]).
Ros Ruiz teaches that the slots 25/26 and 35/36 allow for linear and angular positional adjustment of the bearing assembly portion 4 with respect to the bridge portion 33/34 (paragraph [0039]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the bolts enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the bridge portion.
It is noted that “for a truss foundation” and “enable the bearing assembly to pivot with respect to the bridge portion” are intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the bearing assembly is adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion.
It is noted that “adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the two pairs of opposing channels 35/36 permit the adjustability to different pitches.
It is noted that “permit the adjustability to different pitches” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the bearing assembly is adjustable to different yaw positions about the bridge portion.
It is noted that “adjustable to different pitches about the bridge portion” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the two pairs of opposing channels 35/36 permit the adjustability to different yaw positions.
It is noted that “permit the adjustability to different yaw positions” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 6, Ros Ruiz teaches that the adapter plates 15/23 and 16/24 comprise upper (i.e. 15 and 16) and lower (i.e. 23 and 24) adapter plates (Fig. 4).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the upper and lower adapter plates are identical (i.e. wherein the upper adapter plates 15 and 16 are identical to each other and the lower adapter plates 23 and 24 are identical to each other).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the upper adapter plate 15 provides a planar support surface for the bearing assembly, corresponding to planar support tab 55 that is taught to be connected to a surface of the bearing assembly 5/6 (Figs. 4 and 9, paragraph [0044]).
In reference to Claim 11, Fig. 9 teaches that items 8 (which are bolts, per the rejection of Claim 1 above) are secured with nuts 49 (Fig. 8, paragraph [0039]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ros Ruiz, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0347859 A1), in view of Gillis, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0344330 A1), and further in view of Stermac (U.S. Patent 3,646,635).
In reference to Claim 12, modified Ros Ruiz does not teach that the bolts are secured with threaded compression plates.
Instead, as shown in Fig. 4, Ros Ruiz teaches that the bolts are secured with washers and nuts.
To solve the same problem of providing a means to secure a bolt, Stermac teaches that both nuts and threaded compression plates are suitable for securing threaded fasteners (column 3, lines 4-10).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used a threaded compression plate, instead of nuts, to secure the bolts of modified Ros Ruiz, based on the disclosure of Stermac.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm 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, 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721