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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined in this application
This communication is the first action on the merits
Claims 1-9 are rejected herein
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 10/31/2024 and reviewed by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “having damping means that absorb the vibrations produced.” The Examiner is interpreting that this limitation invokes 112(f).
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "having damping means that absorb the vibrations produced" and "by attachment with damping means" " in lines 2 and 5 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The Examiner suggests these be amended to “having a damping means that absorbs the vibrations produced” and “by attachment with the damping means” respectively.
Claim 9 recites “devices attached according to a distribution in the panels of the solar tracker according to a vibration calculation along the solar tracker.” It is unclear whether “attached” is being used as functional language as an intended use or if the structure is positively claimed. If the Applicant intended to claim the sub-combination, the Examiner suggests the use of the term “configure.”
Claims 2-8 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
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, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowser (US Pat. No. 2854100 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bowser teaches a vibration damping system, for those vibrations that are produced in a solar tracker, by means of at least one damping device (vibrating damping device shown in Fig 3.) having damping means (ports 58 and 60 and their respective springs 74 and 76) that absorb the vibrations produced (damping device has the capability to absorb vibrations produced), wherein the damping device is removably attachable on at least one panel of the solar tracker (damping device has the capability of being removed from a solar tracker), the damping device comprising at least one mass (mass 68) movably suspended along a cavity (air chambers 62 and 64) of the device by attachment with damping means (ports 58 and 60 are attached to coil springs 74 and 76 respectively and each of the springs is attached to mass 68) , and the mass being movable within the cavity perpendicular to the panel in the operative position (mass has the capability to be moved within the open space and to move perpendicular relative to a solar tracker).
NOTE: The “solar tracker” is being interpreted as fully within the intended use language “for those vibrations that are produced in a solar tracker” and is therefore not a positively claimed structure in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Bowser teaches the damping system according to claim 1, wherein the damping means of the device comprise at least a first elastic element (spring 74) attachable to an upper portion of the cavity (spring 74 attaches to cap member 16 at the upper portion of the cavity) which attaches the suspended mass at its other end (mass 68 is located at the bottom end of spring 74).
Regarding claim 6, Bowser teaches the damping system according to claim 5, wherein the damping means of the device comprise a second elastic element (spring 76) for attaching the mass to a lower portion of the cavity (attaches to the bottom portion of cavity at cap 18).
Regarding claim 7, Bowser teaches the damping system according to claim 1, wherein lateral walls (closed cylinder 12 and cap members 16 and 18) of the cavity are configured for the displacement of the mass within the cavity perpendicular to the panel (lateral walls have the capacity to be perpendicular to the panel).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowser(US Pat. No. 2854100 A ) in view of Wieser (US Pat. No. US 20100032256 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bowser teaches the damping system according to claim 1. Bowser does not teach that the damping device is attachable to the panel in its frame by means of nesting provided by an attachment groove. Wieser teaches a device capable of being attached to the panel in its frame by means of nesting provided by an attachment groove (attachment grove can be defined by the area between the carrier element 12 and the top of the vibration mass 14, shown as groove A in the figure below). Bowser and Wieser are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. attaching a damper to another object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the damping device attachable to the frame of a panel by means of nesting provided by an attachment groove. The motivation would have been to use the damping device to reduce vibrations in the panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bowser as modified teaches the damping system according to claim 2, wherein the groove is adjustable to the dimensions of the frame (groove A is adjustable to the dimensions of the frame due to the elastic connection of spring arrangement 20; Wieser).
Regarding claim 4, Bowser as modified teaches the damping system according to claim 3, wherein the groove comprises an elastic joint for adjustment to the dimensions of the frame (groove A is comprises an elastic joint for adjustment to the dimensions of the frame due to the elastic connection of spring arrangement 20; Wieser).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowser(US Pat. No. 2854100 A ).
Regarding claim 8, Bowser teaches the damping system according to claim 1, comprising at least two damping devices attachable on a panel symmetrically with respect to the shaft of the solar tracker (MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; both damping devices have the capability to be attached on a panel symmetrically with respect to the shaft of the solar tracker).
Regarding claim 9, Bowser teaches the damping system according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of damping devices attached according to a distribution in the panels of the solar tracker according to a vibration calculation along the solar tracker (For the plurality of damping devices, see MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; intended use: the damping devices of Bowser are capable of being attached to the panels of the solar tracker according to a vibration calculation along the solar tracker).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM DONALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-9214. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F between 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM.
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 5712728227. 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.
/W.D.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights