DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/945,790, filed 11/13/2024, which is a continuation of 18/899,182, filed 9/27/2024, which is a continuation of 17/840,336, filed 6/14/2022, which is a continuation of 17/347,393, filed 6/14/2021, which is a continuation of 15/640,322, filed 6/30/2017, which is a continuation of 14/101,273, filed 12/9/2013, which claims priority to provisional application 61/735,537, filed 12/10/2012.
Claims 1-20 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 7/15/2026, the rejections of record are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0319402 A1: This reference teaches a solar tracking system using a torque shaft.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-8, 13, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayden, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0062037 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Hayden teaches a solar tracker apparatus (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0045]-[0055]).
The apparatus of Hayden comprises a continuous torque tube 44 extending along at least a portion of a row of the solar tracker apparatus in a continuous length from a first end to a second end of the continuous torque tube, the second end being opposite the first end (Fig. 2, paragraph [0051]).
The apparatus of Hayden comprises a plurality of solar panels 22 fixedly coupled to the continuous torque tube 44 (paragraph [0046]).
The apparatus of Hayden comprises a plurality of pivot devices 46 supporting the continuous torque tube 44 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0051]).
Hayden teaches that the torque tube pivots about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass 52 of a combination of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels (Figs. 4-7, paragraphs [0052]-[0065]).
Therefore, Hayden teaches that each pivot device 46 is configured to enable the continuous torque tube 44 to pivot about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass 52 of a combination of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels, wherein the continuous torque tube extends along at least the portion of the row through the plurality of pivot devices 46.
It is noted that “configured to enable the continuous torque tube to pivot about a pivot axis, wherein the continuous torque tube extends along at least the portion of the row through the plurality of pivot devices” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
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, Hayden teaches that the continuous torque tube 44 passes through each pivot device 46 along at least the portion of the row in a direction parallel to a central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube (Fig. 3).
In reference to Claim 3, Hayden teaches that each pivot device 46 comprises a torque tube opening extending through each pivot device in the direction parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube (Fig. 3).
Figs. 2-3 teach that the continuous torque tube 44 extends along at least the portion of the row in the continuous length that spans through the torque tube opening in the direction parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube.
In reference to Claim 4, Hayden teaches that the continuous torque tube 44 is configured to pivot about the pivot axis in both a first direction and a second, opposite direction (Figs. 4-7, paragraphs [0056]-[0059]).
In reference to Claim 5, Hayden teaches that the pivot axis is offset from the central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube (Figs. 4-8, paragraph [0049]).
In reference to Claim 6, Hayden teaches that the continuous torque tube 44 extends through the torque tube opening along the continuous length (Fig. 3).
Hayden teaches that each pivot device 46 comprises a first stop region (i.e. as shown in Fig. 5, paragraph [0056]) and a second stop region adjacent to a respective torque tube opening (i.e. as shown in Fig. 6, paragraph [0056]).
Hayden teaches that each pivot device 46 and the respective torque tube opening are configured such that the continuous torque tube 44 pivots in the first direction and stops against the first stop region at each pivot device and pivots in the second, opposite direction and stops against the second stop region at each pivot device (Figs. 5-6, paragraph [0056]).
In reference to Claim 7, Hayden teaches that a first pivot device 46 of the plurality of pivot devices is configured to couple to a first ground support structure 26 of the row (Fig. 2, paragraph [0047]).
The row is shown in Fig. 1.
Hayden teaches that the continuous length is configured to span (i.e. at least partially span) at least a first bay of the solar tracker apparatus and a second bay of the solar tracker apparatus, as described in the inset below.
The first bay (shown in the inset below) is defined from the first ground support structure to a second ground support structure that is spaced apart from the first ground support structure in a first direction along the row, the second bay defined from the first ground support structure to a third ground support structure that is spaced apart from the first ground support structure in a second direction along the row, the first direction along the row being opposite the second direction along the row.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 8, Hayden teaches that the apparatus of his invention comprises at least one drive motor (i.e. hydraulic actuator) at the row of the solar tracker apparatus and configured to impart rotational force to the continuous torque tube to thereby cause the continuous torque tube to pivot in both a first direction and a second, opposite direction along the continuous length configured to span at least the first bay and the second bay (paragraphs [0046] and [0054]-[0056]).
It is noted that “configured to impart rotational force to the continuous torque tube to thereby cause the continuous torque tube to pivot in both a first direction and a second, opposite direction along the continuous length configured to span at least the first bay and the second bay” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
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 13, Hayden teaches a solar tracker apparatus (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0045]-[0055]).
The apparatus of Hayden comprises a continuous torque tube 44 extending along at least a portion of a row of the solar tracker apparatus in a continuous length from a first end to a second end of the continuous torque tube, the second end being opposite the first end (Fig. 2, paragraph [0051]).
The apparatus of Hayden comprises a plurality of solar panels 22 fixedly coupled to the continuous torque tube 44 (paragraph [0046]).
The apparatus of Hayden comprises a plurality of pivot devices 46 supporting the continuous torque tube 44 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0051]).
Hayden teaches that the torque tube pivots about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass 52 of a combination of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels (Figs. 4-7, paragraphs [0052]-[0065]).
Therefore, Hayden teaches that each pivot device 46 is configured to enable the continuous torque tube 44 to pivot about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass 52 of a combination of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels, wherein the continuous torque tube extends along at least the portion of the row through the plurality of pivot devices 46.
Hayden teaches that the apparatus of his invention comprises a drive motor (i.e. hydraulic actuator) at the row of the solar tracker apparatus and configured to impart force to the continuous torque tube to thereby cause the continuous torque tube to pivot about the pivot axis in both a first direction and a second direction along the continuous length, the second direction being opposite the first direction (paragraphs [0046] and [0054]-[0056]).
It is noted that “configured to enable the continuous torque tube to pivot about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass of a combination of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels, wherein the continuous torque tube extends along at least the portion of the row through the plurality of pivot devices” and “configured to impart force to the continuous torque tube to thereby cause the continuous torque tube to pivot about the pivot axis in both a first direction and a second direction along the continuous length, the second direction being opposite the first direction” are intended use limitations of the claim.
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 16, Hayden teaches that the pivot axis is offset from the central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube (Figs. 4-8, paragraph [0049]).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayden, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0062037 A1) in view of Shingleton (U.S. Patent 6,058,930).
In reference to Claims 9 and 19, Hayden does not teach that the continuous torque tube comprises a plurality of torque tubes configured together to extend along the continuous length from the first end of the continuous torque tube to the second end of the continuous torque tube.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar tracker comprising a torque tube, Shingleton teaches that torque tubes may be suitable configured to comprise multiple sections swage-fitted together (column 4, lines 9-17).
Shingleton further teaches that this configuration provides the benefit of (1) providing a tight fit between adjacent torque tube sections, and (2) eliminating the requirement that the ends of the torque tubes must be aligned with the ends of the piers (column 4, lines 9-16).
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 formed the torque tube structure 44 of Hayden from a plurality of swage-fitted sections, as taught by Shingleton, to realize the taught benefits of this configuration.
Forming the torque tube structure 44 of Hayden from a plurality of swage-fitted sections teaches the limitations of Claims 9 and 19, wherein the continuous torque tube comprises a plurality of torque tubes configured together to extend along the continuous length from the first end of the continuous torque tube to the second end of the continuous torque tube.
Forming the torque tube structure 44 of Hayden from a plurality of swage-fitted sections teaches the limitations of Claims 10 and 20, wherein the plurality of torque tubes are at least swage fitted together to form the continuous torque tube extending along the continuous length.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayden, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0062037 A1) in view of Kats, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0101632 A1).
In reference to Claims 11 and 17, Hayden is silent regarding the continuous length of the continuous torque tube.
Therefore, he does not teach the limitations of Claims 11 and 17.
However, he teaches that the number of solar panels in the device of his invention is not limited (column 7, lines 37-42).
To solve the same problem of providing a solar tracker with photovoltaic panels, Kats teaches that the length of a torque tube in such a device can be selected so that the appropriate number of solar panels can be accommodated, in order to produce a desired power output (paragraph [0022]).
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 modified the dimensions of the device of Hayden (i.e. the number of panels and the length of the torque tube), in order to produce an array capable of generating a desired power output, based on the teachings of Kats.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived a structure having the claimed torque tube length recited in Claims 11 and 17, without undue experimentation.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayden, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0062037 A1) in view of Pizzarello, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0061644 A1).
In reference to Claim 12, Hayden teaches that the apparatus of his invention is a dual axis solar tracker apparatus (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, he does not teach that the solar tracker apparatus is a single-axis solar tracker apparatus.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar tracker apparatus with a torque structure, Pizzarello teaches that both single- and dual-axis solar trackers provide the benefit of higher efficiency output per panel (paragraph [0005]).
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 formed the tracker of Hayden to comprise either single- or dual-axis tracking, based on the disclosure of Pizzarello.
Forming the tracker of Hayden to provide single-axis tracking teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the solar tracker apparatus is a single-axis solar tracker apparatus.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayden, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0062037 A1) in view of Barker (U.S. Patent 5,228,924) and Pizzarello, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0061644 A1).
In reference to Claim 14, Hayden teaches that a first pivot device 46 of the plurality of pivot devices is configured to couple to a first ground support structure 26 of the row (Fig. 2, paragraph [0046]).
Hayden does not teach that the drive motor is configured to couple to a second ground support structure of the row, the second ground support structure being spaced apart from the first ground support structure in a direction along a length of the row, wherein the continuous length is configured to enable the first end to couple to the drive motor at the second ground support structure to receive the force at the first end, and wherein the continuous length is configured to enable the continuous torque tube to extend from the drive motor and past the first pivot device at the first ground support structure.
However, he teaches that other forms of support 26 may be used (paragraph [0047]).
To solve the same problem of providing a tracking solar array comprising a pivoting structure and a torque tube, Barker teaches a support structure in which multiple A-frame supports 10 may be arranged to support a row of solar cells (Figs. 1-2, column 4, lines 7-18).
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 replaced the support structure 26 of Hayden with multiple A-frame support structures 10, as taught by Barker.
This modification would have been obvious because (1) Hayden does not limit the support structure of his invention, and (2) Barker teaches that the support structure of his invention is suitable and conventional for supporting a pivoting solar array comprising a torque tube.
Replacing the support structure 26 of Hayden with multiple A-frame support structures 10, as taught by Barker, teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the drive motor is configured to couple to a second ground support structure of the row, because all of the solar panels within modified Hayden are supported by the plurality of A-frame structures 10 of Barker.
Replacing the support structure 26 of Hayden with multiple A-frame support structures 10, as taught by Barker, teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the second ground support structure (i.e. one of items 10 of Barker) is spaced apart from the first ground support structure (i.e. another of items 10 of Barker) in a direction along a length of the row.
Replacing the support structure 26 of Hayden with multiple A-frame support structures 10, as taught by Barker, teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the continuous length is configured to enable the first end to couple to the drive motor at the second ground support structure to receive the force at the first end, and wherein the continuous length is configured to enable the continuous torque tube to extend from the drive motor and past the first pivot device at the first ground support structure.
Replacing the support structure 26 of Hayden with multiple A-frame support structures 10, as taught by Barker, teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the continuous length of the continuous torque tube is configured to span at least a first bay of the solar tracker apparatus and a second bay of the solar tracker apparatus, the first bay defined from the second ground support structure to the first ground support structure that is spaced apart from the second ground support structure in a first direction along the row, the second bay defined from the first ground support structure to a third ground support structure that is spaced apart from the first ground support structure in the first direction along the row. These “bays” are illustrated in the inset of Barker below.
PNG
media_image2.png
539
867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that this modification would render the apparatus of Hayden a single-axis tracker, instead of a dual-axis tracker. It is the Examiner’s position that this modification would have been obvious, in light of the disclosure of Pizzarello, as described below.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar tracker apparatus with a torque structure, Pizzarello teaches that both single- and dual-axis solar trackers provide the benefit of higher efficiency output per panel (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the tracker of Hayden to comprise the support structure of Barker, which would have rendered the apparatus of Hayden a single-axis solar tracker, based on the disclosure of Pizzarello.
It is noted that “configured to couple to a first ground support structure of the row,” “configured to couple to a second ground support structure of the row, the second ground support structure being spaced apart from the first ground support structure in a direction along a length of the row, wherein the continuous length is configured to enable the first end to couple to the drive motor at the second ground support structure to receive the force at the first end, and wherein the continuous length is configured to enable the continuous torque tube to extend from the drive motor and past the first pivot device at the first ground support structure,” and “configured to span at least a first bay of the solar tracker apparatus and a second bay of the solar tracker apparatus, the first bay defined from the second ground support structure to the first ground support structure that is spaced apart from the second ground support structure in a first direction along the row, the second bay defined from the first ground support structure to a third ground support structure that is spaced apart from the first ground support structure in the first direction along the row” are intended use limitations of the claim.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayden, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0062037 A1) in view of Kats, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0101632 A1), and further in view of Pizzarello, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0061644 A1).
In reference to Claim 18, Hayden teaches that the apparatus of his invention is a dual axis solar tracker apparatus (paragraph [0050]).
Therefore, he does not teach that the solar tracker apparatus is a single-axis solar tracker apparatus.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar tracker apparatus with a torque structure, Pizzarello teaches that both single- and dual-axis solar trackers provide the benefit of higher efficiency output per panel (paragraph [0005]).
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 formed the tracker of Hayden to comprise either single- or dual-axis tracking, based on the disclosure of Pizzarello.
Forming the tracker of Hayden to provide single-axis tracking teaches the limitations of Claim 18, wherein the solar tracker apparatus is a single-axis solar tracker apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections presented in the non-final office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Conclusion
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 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
