DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 1/2/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 1-12 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.
In claim 1, lines 1-2 it is unclear what the applicant means by “at a site of the solar tracking system”. Accordingly, the limitation is indefinite and the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menard (WO2022/242858A1). For the sake of convenience citations have been made with respect to US2024/0253748A1, which is the US equivalent of WO2022/242858A1.
With respect to claim 1, Menard teaches a method for manufacturing a continuous torque tube (101) of a solar tracking system (paragraph 124) at a site (launch ramp/shore/water site) of the solar tracking system (figures 1-12), the method comprising the steps of: placing raw material (10/23) at an input of a rolling apparatus (20/22) at the site; shaping the raw material at the rolling apparatus at the site to create two or more shaped torque tube components from the raw material (figures 1-12, and paragraphs 20, 26-29, 36-41, 43-47, 92, 97, 109, 114, 118, 123-124, 127, and 136); joining the two or more shaped torque tube components at the site to create the continuous torque tube (101) (figures 1-12, and paragraphs 20, 26-29, 36-41, 43-47, 92, 97, 109, 114, 118, 123-124, 127, and 136); and after joining the two or more shaped torque tube components at the site to create the continuous torque tube, placing one or more solar modules (300) at the continuous torque tube (figures 1-12, and paragraphs 20, 26-29, 36-41, 43-47, 92, 97, 109, 114, 118, 123-124, 127, and 136).
With respect to claim 2, Menard teaches the raw material comprises a precoated planar coil (10/23), and wherein the rolling apparatus (20/22) is configured to shape the precoated planar coil at the site to create the two or more shaped torque tube components that comprise at least one non-planar shaped torque tube component (figures 1-2; and paragraph 32).
With respect to claim 3, Menard teaches wherein the rolling apparatus is configured to shape the precoated planar coil at the site to create the two or more shaped torque tube components that comprise: (i) at least one non-planar shaped torque tube component comprising a non-planar outer surface (paragraph 120), and (ii) at least one shaped torque tube component comprising a planar solar module support surface (square, rectangle, hexagonal, or any closed shape polygon profile) at an outer surface of the at least one shaped torque tube component (paragraph 121).
With respect to claim 12, Menard teaches wherein the continuous torque tube (101) comprises a planar solar module (300) support surface (207) at a portion of an outer surface of the continuous torque tube, and wherein the continuous torque tube is an integral continuous torque tube spanning a length of a row of the solar tracking system at the site (figures 1-12; and paragraphs 114, 117, and 122).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menard as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Au et al. (CN-112352379A) (hereafter Au).
With respect to claim 4, Menard teaches wherein shaping the precoated planar coil at the rolling apparatus at the site comprises using two or more rollers to shape the precoated planar coil into (i) the at least one non-planar shaped torque tube component comprising the non-planar outer surface (figure 1). However, Menard does not explicitly teach that rolling apparatus comprises using two or more rollers to shape the precoated planar coil into (ii) at least one shaped torque tube component comprising the planar solar module support surface at the outer surface of the at least one shaped torque tube component.
However, Au teaches using rollers (124) to shape into any suitable profile, such as triangle, pentagon, hexagon, octagon and so on (figures 13-14; and the machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have bee obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the roller shaping of Au to form the square, rectangle, hexagonal, or any closed shape polygon profiles taught by Menard in order to accurately form the desired shapes.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferreruela (US3,085,146).
With respect to claim 7, Menard does not teach wherein the two or more shaped torque tube components are joined at the site to create the continuous torque tube using a joining apparatus, the joining apparatus having an input in communication with an output of the rolling apparatus.
However, Ferreruela teaches a mobile pipe manufacturing plant wherein the two or more shaped tube components (continuous pipe of indefinite lengths produced from rolls of strip material) are joined at a site to create the continuous tube using a joining apparatus, the joining apparatus (the electrodes 17 and 27 of the electric welding equipment) having an input (broadest reasonable interpretation) in communication with an output (broadest reasonable interpretation) of the rolling apparatus (rollers 9, 10, and 21) (figures; and column 2, line 10-column 3, line 37).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the mobile pipe manufacturing plant of Ferreruela in the process of Menard in order to remotely manufacture tubes at the desired location and thereby reduce transportation and storage costs.
With respect to claim 8, Ferreruela teaches wherein the rolling apparatus and the joining apparatus are each supported at a mobile vehicle (semi-trailer) such that the two or more (successively) shaped tube components are created at the rolling apparatus and fed to the joining apparatus at the mobile vehicle (figures; and column 2, line 10-column 3, line 37).
With respect to claim 9, Menard teaches after joining the two or more shaped torque tube components at the site to create the continuous torque tube, supporting the continuous torque tube at a temporary continuous torque tube support that is positioned downstream of the joining apparatus and upstream of a pier location (two guiding elongated rails elements 810 & 820 parallelly disposed with one section 801 on shore 2000 and one extremity 802 immerged into the water body 3000) (figure 8; and paragraph 108).
With respect to claim 10, Ferreruela teaches wherein the joining apparatus (the electrodes 17 and 27 of the electric welding equipment) seams (welds) together the two or more shaped tube components received from the rolling apparatus to create the continuous torque tube (continuous pipe of indefinite lengths) at the site (figures; and column 2, line 10-column 3, line 37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735