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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, applicant recites the limitations “the assembly ropes comprising a first assembly rope and a second assembly rope which are disposed along a left-right direction” and “the stabilizing ropes comprising a first stabilizing rope and a second stabilizing rope which are disposed along the left-right direction” without ever defining what is considered left and what is considered right.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as they are dependent on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the base" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as they are dependent on claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, applicant recites “as viewed in a direction perpendicular to a plane where the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope are located”. This limitation is indefinite in two ways. First, the location of the ropes is not specified. This limitation is unclear on its face. Second, no matter how the term location is defined, there are two directions that will be perpendicular, from above or below (looking up or down) and from the end (perpendicular to beam direction, the ropes disposed or located along the beam) or alternatively the side, viewing the ropes disposed or located in the longitudinal direction, spanning between beams. Whether the end or side is the second possible perpendicular direction depends on interpretation of “located”.
Addressing the issue of “located”, in applicant’s specification, the full limitation is that the assembly ropes are “between” the stabilizing ropes when viewed. When viewed from above, the assembly ropes (11, 12) are at times “between” the stabilizing ropes (13, 14) (at the frame structure shown in applicant’s fig. 2) and at times the stabilizing ropes (13, 14) are “between” the assembly ropes (11, 12) (at the beam structure shown in applicant’s fig. 3). Furthermore, when viewed from the end, the assembly ropes are above, not between the stabilizing ropes. Claims 2 and 12 are sufficiently indefinite as to prevent further examination on the merits.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “a base” in line 2. It is unclear whether the base referenced in claims 10 and 20 is the same base as recited in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. (CN 11 672 2809) (out of order, inserted amendment para numbers are denoted by an n).
Regarding claim 1, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket (see abstract), comprising:
a plurality of basic structures (column 200) fixed to a mounting plane at intervals (shown in fig. 1, see para [n0037]);
a plurality of beam structures (900 cross beams) correspondingly installed to the base structures (200);
a driving device (800 drive source), installed to the beam structure (900) and configured to drive the beam structure to rotate around an axis (shown in fig. 8, para [n0068]);
a rope structure connecting adjacent beam structures (shown in figs. 1, 9 and 10);
the rope structure comprising assembly ropes (210, component cables) and stabilizing ropes (400, 500, wind resistant cables); (see para [n0030] and [0048]-[0056]);
the stabilizing ropes (400, 500) being located below the assembly ropes (210) (shown in fig. 2);
the assembly ropes being configured to be fixedly connected to a plurality of photovoltaic modules (see para [n0019]);
the assembly ropes comprising a first assembly rope and a second assembly rope which are disposed along a left-right direction (shown in fig. 1, 2 and 10);
the stabilizing ropes (400, 500) comprising a first stabilizing rope and a second stabilizing rope which are disposed along the left-right direction (shown in fig. 1 and 2); and
a support frame (300, wind resistant impeller, see para [0050]) connected to the assembly ropes and the stabilizing ropes (shown in figs. 1 and 2);
wherein the first stabilizing rope is in an arc shape that curves in an upper right direction, and/or, the second stabilizing rope is in an arc shape that curves in an upper left direction (shown in fig. 1 and 10). (See para [n0037]-[n0071]).
Ru does not disclose the mounting plane to be the ground. The ground as a mounting plane is a well-known expedient in the art for photovoltaic rotating flexible brackets (see MPEP § 2144.03). The court has held it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., the ground as is known in the art) for another known device (i.e., the mounting plane disclosed by Ru), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a supported photovoltaic array).
Regarding claim 4, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 1, wherein the support frame comprises a first cross rod, a second cross rod, a first side rod and a second side rod (see markup of fig. 3 shown below);
the first cross rod connects the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope; the second cross rod connects the first stabilizing rope and the second stabilizing rope;
the first side rod connects one end of the first cross rod adjacent to the first assembly rope and one end of the second cross rod adjacent to the first stabilizing rope;
the second side rod connects another end of the first cross rod adjacent to the second assembly rope and another end of the second cross rod adjacent to the second stabilizing rope (see fig. 3, para [n0043]-[n0053]).
The cross bar and side bars are integral. The court has held absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make a device integral or separable, as the use of a one-piece construction instead of a multiple piece structure is merely a matter of engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See also MPEP § 2144.04.
That the lower part of the support frame of Ru is an arc rather than containing squared corners is a matter of design, wherein a change of shape and/or design holds no patentable distinction when there is no change in function. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). See also MPEP § 2144.04.
PNG
media_image1.png
503
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
558
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Change of Shape, See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 1, wherein at a connection of the rope structure and the beam structure, the stabilizing ropes are located between the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope (shown in figs. 7, 8 and 10, see para [n0030] and [0048]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 1, wherein the rope structure further comprises a plurality of anchors;
ends of the assembly ropes and ends of the stabilizing ropes are fixed to the beam structure through the anchors (shown in figs. 9 and 10, fig. 10 highlighted below) (see para [n0065] and [n0038]);
each of the assembly ropes and the stabilizing ropes has a tension force towards a respective end thereof (tension of support cables is inherent, see MPEP § 2112) (see also para [n0037], i.e., taut state).
PNG
media_image3.png
835
851
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 1, wherein the support frame (300) is connected to the rope structure through a plurality of connecting components (shown in fig. 2);
the connecting component comprises a buckle (630), a holding block (610) and fasteners (fasteners shown in fig. 2, 4 places); the buckle (630) and the holding block (610) are fixedly connected through the fastener (see fig. 2); the buckle (end plate 630) and the holding block (610) form a through hole (611, 612, 631, 632) through which one of the assembly ropes and the stabilizing ropes is configured to pass, specifically the stabilizing ropes (see figs. 2 and 4, para [0053], [n0040]).
Bolts are a well-known expedient in the art as a type of fastener. See MPEP 2144.03.
The Courts have held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 1, wherein the basic structures comprise a plurality of upright columns (31); the beam structures are installed to the upright columns (shown in figs. 1 and 8-10, see para [n0048]-[0056], [0030], [n0037], [n0037]-[n0071]).
Ru discloses the flexible photovoltaic bracket further comprises a wind-resistant assembly (center post and beams, see fig. 1); wherein the wind-resistant assembly are disposed at intervals between adjacent upright columns (between end post and beams) (see para [n0030], [0048]-[0056] and [n0037]-[n0071]). Note: the examiner has reviewed applicant’s specification and wind resistant assemblies are additional supports and beams, albeit a different configuration. The examiner notes the center beam of Ru is a different configuration as it supports two beams. It is the examiner’s positions that plural post and beams reads on wind resistant assemblies.
Ru does not specifically disclose “a plurality” of wind-resistant assemblies, as Ru only shows a single middle post.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Ru by adding a plurality of the wind-resistant center posts, specifically as the bracket extended, or harsher wind environments, as the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 10, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 9, wherein the beam structure comprises a base (top of upright column 31 that holds bearing, shown in figs. 8-10, identifier not provided by Ru) and an inclinable beam (900);
the base (top holding bearing) is fixed to the upright column (200);
the driving device (800) comprises a rotary driving machine and a motor; the motor provides power to the rotary driving machine; the inclinable beam (300) and the rotary driving machine are coaxially and rotatably installed to the base (200) (shown in figs. 8-10) (see para [n0048]-[0056], [0030], [n0037], [n0037]-[n0071]).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP § 2125.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Jing et al. (CN 11 344 5668) (out of order, inserted amendment para numbers are denoted by an n).
Regarding claim 3, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 1, but does not specifically or clearly disclose wherein as viewed along a cross section of the rope structure, the first stabilizing rope and the second stabilizing rope are symmetrical with respect to a mid-perpendicular line which is perpendicular to a connecting line connecting the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope. The examiner notes the following are four examples of symmetrical:
PNG
media_image4.png
320
810
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jing is analogous art to Ru as Jing discloses a flexible solar bracket (see abstract, i.e., cable structure). Jing discloses assembly ropes/cables (22) and stabilizing ropes/cables (23) and a support frame (21) that connects attaches to the assembly (22) and stabilizing (23) ropes/cables (shown in figs. 1 and 2, see para [n0024], [n0034]). Jing discloses as viewed along a cross section of the rope structure, the first stabilizing rope and the second stabilizing rope are symmetrical with respect to a mid-perpendicular line which is perpendicular to a connecting line connecting the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope (shown in figs. 1 and 2, see para [n0024], [n0034]).
The court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e., the assembly and stabilizing cables/ropes of Ru) according to known methods (i.e., the maintenance of symmetry) wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a flexible support bracket).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 114865995).
Regarding claim 5, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 4, wherein a plurality of the support frames (300) are provided and disposed at intervals along an extension direction of the rope structure (shown in fig. 1, see para [n0037]);
the plurality of support frames (300) comprise a first support frame located in a middle of the rope structure and a plurality of second support frames disposed on two sides of the first support frame along the extension direction of the rope structure (shown in fig. 1, see para [n0037]).
Ru does not disclose an area of the first support frame is larger than an area of the second support frame.
Xu is analogous art to Ru as Xu discloses a flexible cable bracket (i.e., cable span photovoltaic support) (see abstract). Xu discloses assembly cables (13), stabilizing cables (12) and a support frame (14, 2 places, 16 and 17, i.e., four-cable spatial cable truss) (see para [n0040]-[n0053]). Xu discloses wherein an area of the first support frame is larger than an area of the second support frame (shown in fig. 5, para [n0053]-[n0062]).
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 support frames of Xu) according to known methods (i.e., decreasing the size of the support frame as it approaches the beam structure), wherein the result is predictable (strengthened cables/ropes).
Claims 11, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. (CN 11 672 2809) in view of Li et al. (CN 21 581 7990), (out of order, inserted amendment para numbers are denoted by an n).
Regarding claim 11, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket, comprising:
a plurality of basic structures (200 columns) configured to be fixed to a mounting surface and being disposed at intervals (shown in fig. 1);
a plurality of beam structures (900) correspondingly installed to the base structures (200);
a driving device (800) configured to drive each beam structure to rotate around an axis;
a rope structure connecting adjacent beam structures (shown in fig. 1);
the rope structure comprising assembly ropes (component cable 210) and stabilizing ropes (400/500); (see para [n0030] [n0037], and [0048]-[0056]);
the stabilizing ropes (400/500) being located below the assembly ropes (210) (shown in fig. 1-2);
the assembly ropes (210) being configured to be fixedly connected to a photovoltaic module (100) (shown in fig. 2);
the assembly ropes comprising a first assembly rope and a second assembly rope which are disposed along a left-right direction (shown in figs. 1, 2 and 8-10);
the stabilizing ropes comprising a first stabilizing rope and a second stabilizing rope which are disposed along the left-right direction (400/500) (shown in figs. 1, 2 and 8-10); and
the support frame comprising a first cross rod, a second cross rod disposed opposite to the first cross rod, a first side rod and a second side rod disposed opposite to the first side rod; the first cross rod connecting the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope; the second cross rod connecting the first stabilizing rope and the second stabilizing rope (see markup of fig 3 below) (see also discussion of claim 4 above);
PNG
media_image1.png
503
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
558
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Change of shape, see MPEP § 2144.04.
the first assembly rope being connected to one end the first cross rod, and the second assembly rope being connected to another end of the first cross rod; the first stabilizing rope being connected to one end of the second cross rod, and the second stabilizing rope being connected to another end of the second cross rod (shown in figs. 3-4) (as the stabilizing ropes slide, each are connected to both ends, therefore read on the limitation);
wherein the first stabilizing rope is in an arc shape that curves in an upper right direction, and/or, the second stabilizing rope is in an arc shape that curves in an upper left direction (shown in figs. 1-10) (see para [n0048]-[0056], [0030], [n0037], [n0037]-[n0071]).
Ru does not disclose wherein the support frame being of a quadrilateral configuration.
Li is analogous art to Ru as Li discloses a cable/rope bracket for photovoltaic modules (see figs. 1-2 and abstract). Li discloses assembly ropes (1,2) and stabilizing ropes (8-11), and frame structures (12, 13) (See fig. 1, para [n0030]). Li discloses the support frame to be a quadrilateral (shown in fig. 1, see para [n0038]-[n0039]).
Ru discloses the cross bar and side bars are integral. The court has held absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make a device integral or separable, as the use of a one-piece construction instead of a multiple piece structure is merely a matter of engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See also MPEP § 2144.04.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lower part of the support frame of Ru, an arc, to include squared corners, as a change in shape is a matter of design, wherein a change of shape and/or design holds no patentable distinction when there is no change in function. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). See also MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 14, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 11, wherein the first side rod connects the one end of the first cross rod adjacent to the first assembly rope and the one end of the second cross rod adjacent to the first stabilizing rope; the second side rod connects the another end of the first cross rod adjacent to the second assembly rope and the another end of the second cross rod adjacent to the second stabilizing rope; and wherein the support frame further comprises a reinforcing rod connecting the first cross rod and the second cross rod on one side, and a second reinforcing rod connecting the first cross rod and the second cross rod on another side (see markup of fig. 3 in claim 11 and second markup of fig. 3 below) (see para [n0048]-[0056], [0030], [n0037], [n0037]-[n0071]).
PNG
media_image5.png
293
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 11, wherein at a connection of the rope structure and the beam structure, the stabilizing ropes are located between the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope (shown in figs. 7, 8 and 10, see para [n0030] and [0048]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 17, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 11, wherein the rope structure further comprises a plurality of anchors;
ends of the assembly ropes and ends of the stabilizing ropes are fixed to the beam structure through the anchors (shown in figs. 9 and 10, fig. 10) (see para n[0065] and [n0038]);
each of the assembly ropes and the stabilizing ropes has a tension force towards a respective end thereof (tension of support cables is inherent, see MPEP § 2112) (see also para [n0037], i.e., taut state). See marked up figure at claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 11, wherein the support frame (300) is connected to the rope structure through a plurality of connecting components (shown in fig. 2);
the connecting component comprises a buckle (630), a holding block (610) and fasteners (fasteners shown in fig. 2, 4 places); the buckle (630) and the holding block (610) are fixedly connected through the fastener (see fig. 2); the buckle (end plate 630) and the holding block (610) form a through hole (611, 612, 631, 632) through which one of the assembly ropes and the stabilizing ropes is configured to pass, specifically the stabilizing ropes (see figs. 2 and 4, para [0053], [n0040]).
Bolts are a well-known expedient in the art as a type of fastener. See MPEP 2144.03.
The Courts have held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 19, modified Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 11, wherein the basic structures comprise a plurality of upright columns (31); the beam structures are installed to the upright columns (shown in figs. 1 and 8-10, see para [n0048]-[0056], [0030], [n0037], [n0037]-[n0071]).
Ru discloses the flexible photovoltaic bracket further comprises a wind-resistant assembly (center post and beams, see fig. 1); wherein the wind-resistant assembly are disposed at intervals between adjacent upright columns (between end post and beams) (see Ru para [n0030], [0048]-[0056] and [n0037]-[n0071]). Note: the examiner has reviewed applicant’s specification and wind resistant assemblies are additional supports and beams, albeit a different configuration. The examiner notes the center beam of Ru is a different configuration as it supports two beams. It is the examiner’s positions that plural post and beams reads on wind resistant assemblies.
Ru does not specifically disclose “a plurality” of wind-resistant assemblies, as Ru only shows a single middle post.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Ru by adding a plurality of the wind-resistant center posts, specifically as the bracket extended, or harsher wind environments, as the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 20, modified Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 19, wherein the beam structure comprises a base (top of upright column 31 that holds bearing, shown in figs. 8-10, identifier not provided by Ru) and an inclinable beam (900);
the base (top holding bearing) is fixed to the upright column (200);
the driving device (800) comprises a rotary driving machine and a motor; the motor provides power to the rotary driving machine; the inclinable beam (300) and the rotary driving machine are coaxially and rotatably installed to the base (200) (shown in Ru figs. 8-10) (see para [n0048]-[0056], [0030], [n0037], [n0037]-[n0071]).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP § 2125.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. and Li et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jing et al. (CN 11 344 5668) (out of order, inserted amendment para numbers are denoted by an n).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 1, but does not specifically or clearly disclose wherein as viewed along a cross section of the rope structure, the first stabilizing rope and the second stabilizing rope are symmetrical with respect to a mid-perpendicular line which is perpendicular to a connecting line connecting the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope. The examiner notes the following are four examples of symmetrical:
PNG
media_image4.png
320
810
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jing is analogous art to Ru as Jing discloses a flexible solar bracket (see abstract, i.e., cable structure). Jing discloses assembly ropes/cables (22) and stabilizing ropes/cables (23) and a support frame (21) that connects attaches to the assembly (22) and stabilizing (23) ropes/cables (shown in figs. 1 and 2, see para [n0024], [n0034]). Jing discloses as viewed along a cross section of the rope structure, the first stabilizing rope and the second stabilizing rope are symmetrical with respect to a mid-perpendicular line which is perpendicular to a connecting line connecting the first assembly rope and the second assembly rope (shown in figs. 1 and 2, see para [n0024], [n0034]).
The court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e., the assembly and stabilizing cables/ropes of Ru) according to known methods (i.e., the maintenance of symmetry) wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a flexible support bracket).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ru et al. and Li et al. as applied to claims 11 and 14 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 114865995).
Regarding claim 15, Ru discloses a flexible photovoltaic tracking bracket according to claim 14, wherein a plurality of the support frames (300) are provided and disposed at intervals along an extension direction of the rope structure (shown in fig. 1, see para [n0037]);
the plurality of support frames (300) comprise a first support frame located in a middle of the rope structure and a plurality of second support frames disposed on two sides of the first support frame along the extension direction of the rope structure (shown in fig. 1, see para [n0037]).
Ru does not disclose an area of the first support frame is larger than an area of the second support frame.
Xu is analogous art to Ru as Xu discloses a flexible cable bracket (i.e., cable span photovoltaic support) (see abstract). Xu discloses assembly cables (13), stabilizing cables (12) and a support frame (14, 2 places, 16 and 17, i.e., four-cable spatial cable truss) (see para [n0040]-[n0053]). Xu discloses wherein an area of the first support frame is larger than an area of the second support frame (shown in fig. 5, para [n0053]-[n0062]).
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 support frames of Xu) according to known methods (i.e., decreasing the size of the support frame as it approaches the beam structure), wherein the result is predictable (strengthened cables/ropes).
Conclusion
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