DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits 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.
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 references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0101630 A1: This reference teaches a solar tracker array with a plurality of pivot devices.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0044511 A1: This reference teaches a solar tracker array with a plurality of pivot devices.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 18/899,182, 17/840,336, 17/347,393, 15/640,322, 14/101,273, and provisional application 61/735,537 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
None of the prior filed applications provide support for the limitation “enable the continuous torque tube to pivot about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels,” as recited in independent Claims 1 and 13.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the pivot axis is (1) substantially aligned with the center of mass of the combination of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels, (2) substantially aligned with the center of mass of the torque tube, and also separately aligned with the center of mass of the solar panels, (3) aligned with the center of mass of the torque tube and merely aligned with the plurality of solar panels, or another alignment.
Claims 2-12 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1. Claims 14-20 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 13.
Claims 5 and 16 recite “wherein the pivot axis is offset from a central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube.” Given the indefiniteness of the pivot axis limitation in independent Claims 1 and 13, the limitations of Claims 5 and 16 are also indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “the torque tube opening” in line 2. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, because there is a prior recitation that each of a plurality of pivot devices comprises a torque tube opening. Therefore, it is unclear to which opening is referred by “the torque tube opening” in line Claim 6.
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 1-4, 6-8, and 12-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Barker, et al. (U.S. Patent 5,228,924).
In reference to Claim 1, Barker teaches a solar tracker apparatus (Figs. 1-6, column 2, line 65, through column 4, line 49).
The apparatus of Barker comprises a continuous torque tube 34 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 (Figs. 1-5, column 4, lines 19-35).
The apparatus of Barker comprises a plurality of solar panels 2A-2D coupled to the continuous torque tube 34 (Figs. 1-5, column 4, lines 27-48).
The apparatus of Barker comprises a plurality of pivot devices 38/40 (Fig. 3, column 4, lines 27-34) supporting the continuous torque tube, each pivot device configured to enable the continuous torque tube to pivot about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels (Fig. 1, column 6, lines 35-45).
Figs. 1-5 teach that the continuous torque tube 34 extends along at least the portion of the row through the plurality of pivot devices 38/40.
It is noted that “configured to enable…solar panels” 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, Figs. 1-5 teach that the continuous torque tube 34 passes through each pivot device 38/40 along at least the portion of the row in a direction parallel to a central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube 34.
In reference to Claim 3, Figs. 2-3 teach that each pivot device 38/40 comprises a torque tube opening extending through each pivot device 38/40 in the direction parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube 34.
Figs. 2-3 teach that the continuous torque tube 34 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, Barker teaches that the continuous torque tube 34 is configured to pivot about the pivot axis in both a first direction and a second, opposite direction (column 5, lines 5-13).
It is noted that “configured to pivot…direction” 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 6, Barker teaches that the continuous torque tube 34 extends through the torque tube opening along the continuous length (Figs. 1-5).
Fig. 5 teaches that each pivot device 38/40 comprises a first stop region (i.e. a region at which the pivot device stops) and a second stop region (i.e. a region at which the pivot device stops) adjacent to the torque tube opening.
Barker teaches that each pivot device and torque tube opening are configured such that the continuous torque tube 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 (column 5, lines 14-30).
In reference to Claim 7, Figs. 1-5 teach that a first pivot device 38/40 of the plurality of pivot devices is configured to couple to a first ground support structure 10 of the row, and wherein the continuous length 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 first ground support structure 10 to a second ground support structure 10 that is spaced apart from the first ground support structure in a first direction along the row. These features are shown in the inset below.
The inset below teaches that the second bay is 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
539
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “configured to couple…row” and “configured to span...” 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 8, Barker teaches that the apparatus comprises at least one drive motor 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 (column 4, line 49, through column 5, line 14).
It is noted that “configured to impart…” and “configured to span...” 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 12, the solar tracker apparatus of Barker is a single-axis solar tracker apparatus.
In reference to Claim 13, Barker teaches a solar tracker apparatus (Figs. 1-6, column 2, line 65, through column 4, line 49).
The apparatus of Barker comprises a continuous torque tube 34 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 (Figs. 1-5, column 4, lines 19-35).
The apparatus of Barker comprises a plurality of solar panels 2A-2D coupled to the continuous torque tube 34 (Figs. 1-5, column 4, lines 27-48).
The apparatus of Barker comprises a plurality of pivot devices 38/40 (Fig. 3, column 4, lines 27-34) supporting the continuous torque tube, each pivot device configured to enable the continuous torque tube to pivot about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels (Fig. 1, column 6, lines 35-45).
Figs. 1-5 teach that the continuous torque tube 34 extends along at least the portion of the row through the plurality of pivot devices 38/40.
Barker teaches that the apparatus comprises a drive motor 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 (column 4, line 49, through column 5, line 14).
It is noted that “configured to enable…solar panels” and “configured to impart…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 14, Figs. 1-5 teach that a first pivot device 38/40 of the plurality of pivot devices is configured to couple to a first ground support structure 10 of the row.
The inset below teaches that the drive motor is configured to couple to a second ground support structure 10 of the row.
The inset below teaches that the second ground support structure 10 is spaced apart from the first ground support 10 structure in a direction along a length of the row.
The inset below teaches that 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
539
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “configured to couple…” and “configured to enable...” 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 15, the inset under the rejection of Claim 14 above teaches that 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Haber (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0172922 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Haber teaches a solar tracker apparatus (Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0041]-[0047]).
The apparatus of Haber comprises a continuous torque tube 19 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. 1A, paragraphs [0043]-[0045]).
The apparatus of Haber comprises a plurality of solar panels 12-14 coupled to the continuous torque tube (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0042]).
The apparatus of Haber comprises a plurality of pivot devices 20 supporting the continuous torque tube 19 (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0045]).
Haber teaches that each pivot device 20 is configured to enable the continuous torque tube to pivot about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels (paragraph [0052]).
Haber teaches that the continuous torque tube 19 extends along at least the portion of the row through the plurality of pivot devices 20 (Fig. 1A).
It is noted that “configured to enable…solar panels” 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 2, Fig. 1A teaches that the continuous torque tube 19 passes through each pivot device 20 along at least the portion of the row in a direction parallel to a central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube.
In reference to Claim 3, Fig. 1A teaches that each pivot device 20 comprises a torque tube opening extending through each pivot device 20 in the direction parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube 19. This “opening” corresponds to the opening between the slanted support legs of the pivot devices 20.
Fig. 1A further teaches that the continuous torque tube 19 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, Fig. 1A teaches that the continuous torque tube 19 is configured to pivot about the pivot axis in both a first direction and a second, opposite direction (Figs. 1.1A-1.4A, paragraph [0047]).
It is noted that “configured to pivot…direction” 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 5, Fig. 1A teaches that the pivot axis is offset from the central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube.
In reference to Claim 6, Fig. 1A teaches that the continuous torque tube 19 extends through the torque tube opening along the continuous length.
Fig. 1A teaches that each pivot device comprises a first stop region and a second stop region adjacent to the torque tube opening. These “stop regions” correspond to the angled legs of the support structures.
It is the Examiner’s position that each pivot device and torque tube opening of Haber are structurally capable of operating such that the continuous torque tube 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.
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 Barker, et al. (U.S. Patent 5,228,924) in view of Shingleton (U.S. Patent 6,058,930).
In reference to Claims 9 and 19, Barker 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 34 of Barker from a plurality of swage-fitted sections, as taught by Shingleton, to realize the taught benefits of this configuration.
Forming the torque tube structure 34 of Barker 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 34 of Barker 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 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barker, et al. (U.S. Patent 5,228,924) in view of Kats, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0101632 A1).
In reference to Claims 11 and 17, Barker 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 Barker (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.
In reference to Claim 18, the solar tracker apparatus of Barker is a single-axis solar tracker apparatus.
Claims 7-8 and 13-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haber (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0172922 A1).
In reference to Claim 7, the inset below teaches that a first pivot device 20 of the plurality of pivot devices is configured to couple to a first ground support structure of the row.
The inset below teaches that the continuous length is configured to span at least a first bay of the solar tracker apparatus, the first bay 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 inset below does not explicitly teach a third ground support structure.
However, Haber teaches that, in a preferred embodiment, the array comprises six solar panels (paragraph [0073]).
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 embodiment of Fig. 1A to comprise six solar panels, with ground support structures between each adjacent panel, because Haber teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the array of his invention.
Modifying the embodiment of Fig. 1A to comprise six solar panels, with ground support structures between each adjacent panel, teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the device comprises a second bay, the second bay is 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_image2.png
396
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “configured to couple…row” and “configured to span...” 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 8, Haber teaches that the device of his invention comprises means at the row of the solar tracker apparatus to impart rotational 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, opposite, direction along the continuous length, i.e. tilt mechanism 11 (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0043]).
Haber does not teach that this means is necessarily a motor.
However, he teaches that motors may be used to move the tracker devices of his invention (paragraphs [0078] and [0081]).
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 drive motor as the means to cause movement of the solar tracker device of Fig. 1A, because Haber teaches that movement of the trackers of his invention may be suitably effectuated using motors.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 8, of a drive motor 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 about the pivot axis 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.
It is noted that “configured to impart…” and “configured to span...” 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 13, Haber teaches a solar tracker apparatus (Fig. 1A, paragraphs [0041]-[0047]).
The apparatus of Haber comprises a continuous torque tube 19 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. 1A, paragraphs [0043]-[0045]).
The apparatus of Haber comprises a plurality of solar panels 12-14 coupled to the continuous torque tube (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0042]).
The apparatus of Haber comprises a plurality of pivot devices 20 supporting the continuous torque tube 19 (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0045]).
Haber teaches that each pivot device 20 is configured to enable the continuous torque tube to pivot about a pivot axis substantially aligned with a center of mass of the continuous torque tube and the plurality of solar panels (paragraph [0052]).
Haber teaches that the continuous torque tube 19 extends along at least the portion of the row through the plurality of pivot devices 20 (Fig. 1A).
Haber teaches that the device of his invention comprises means at the row of the solar tracker apparatus 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, i.e. tilt mechanism 11 (Fig. 1A, paragraph [0043]).
Haber does not teach that this means is necessarily a motor.
However, he teaches that motors may be used to move the tracker devices of his invention (paragraphs [0078] and [0081]).
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 drive motor as the means to cause movement of the solar tracker device of Fig. 1A, because Haber teaches that movement of the trackers of his invention may be suitably effectuated using motors.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 13, of a drive motor 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.
It is noted that “configured to enable…solar panels” and “configured to impart…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 14, the inset below teaches that a first pivot device of the plurality of pivot devices is configured to couple to a first ground support structure of the row.
The inset below teaches that the drive motor (which is described in the rejection of Claim 13 above) is configured to couple to a second ground support structure of the row (i.e. be structurally and/or functionally connected to the second ground support structure).
The inset below teaches that the second ground support structure is spaced apart from the first ground support structure in a direction along a length of the row.
The inset below teaches that 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.
PNG
media_image3.png
339
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 15, the inset below teaches that 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 inset below does not explicitly teach a third ground support structure.
However, Haber teaches that, in a preferred embodiment, the array comprises six solar panels (paragraph [0073]).
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 embodiment of Fig. 1A to comprise six solar panels, with ground support structures between each adjacent panel, because Haber teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the array of his invention.
Modifying the embodiment of Fig. 1A to comprise six solar panels, with ground support structures between each adjacent panel, teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the device comprises a second bay, 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. The position of these structures are indicated in the inset below.
PNG
media_image2.png
396
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 16, Fig. 1A teaches that the pivot axis is offset from the central longitudinal axis of the continuous torque tube.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haber (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0172922 A1) in view of Shingleton (U.S. Patent 6,058,930).
In reference to Claims 9 and 19, Haber 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 torque tube supports (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 of Haber from a plurality of swage-fitted sections, as taught by Shingleton, to realize the taught benefits of this configuration.
Forming the torque tube structure of Haber 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 of Haber 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 Haber (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0172922 A1) in view of Kats, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0101632 A1).
In reference to Claims 11 and 17, Haber teaches that, in a preferred embodiment, the length of the torque tube is 4m (paragraph [0073]).
Therefore, he does not teach the limitations of Claims 11 and 17.
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 Haber (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.
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
Prosecution Insights