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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shelton et al. 2022/0069770.
In Re Claim 1, Shelton et al. teach an apparatus comprising: an alignment system; (903, 911) and a torque tube support structure (Fig. 15) configured to support a torque tube (604) in a fixed position, wherein the alignment system is configured to support and to align solar panels along a torque tube when the torque tube is supported in the fixed position for the solar panels to be affixed to the torque tube to form a solar panel assembly. (Fig. 9) (Paragraph 55-58)
In Re Claim 2, Shelton et al. teach wherein the alignment system comprises a panel aligner configured to rotationally align the solar panels with each other while in the alignment system. (See Fig. 9)
In Re Claim 4, Shelton et al. teach wherein: the alignment system comprises a first track (track on sides of 108, Fig. 4a) and a second track (track at the top of 108, Fig. 4a); the first track is coupled to a base of a structure; (See Fig. 4a) and the second track is coupled to an upper portion of the structure. (See Fig. 4a)
In Re Claim 10, Shelton et al. teach wherein the torque tube support structure comprises respective stanchions configured to hold the torque tube of the solar panel assembly in the fixed position. (Fig. 15)
In Re Claim 16, Shelton et al. teach wherein the alignment system is attached to a mobile solar panel assembly complex (907). (See Fig. 9 and Fig. 5)
In Re Claim 23, Shelton et al. teach a method comprising: positioning solar panels (panels in 905, Fig. 9) adjacent to a torque tube; simultaneously aligning the solar panels; and affixing the solar panels to the torque tube to form a solar panel assembly. (Fig. 9)
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. and in view of Bellacicco et al. 2012/0027550.
In Re Claim 7, Shelton et al. teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Shelton et al. do not teach a compressing actuator configured to narrow a respective spacing between each of the solar panels on the alignment system.
However, Bellacicco et al. teach a compressing actuator (490) configured to narrow a respective spacing between each of the solar panels on the alignment system. (Paragraph 51)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a compressing actuator to the apparatus of Shelton et al. as taught by Bellacicco et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the footprint of the system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. and in view of Melton et al. 7,531,741.
In Re Claim 11, Shelton et al. teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Shelton et al. do not teach the respective stanchions comprise respective saddles configured to receive the torque tube of the solar panel assembly; each of the respective stanchions comprises a respective tube and a respective rod positioned in the respective tube; the respective saddle of the each of the respective stanchions is coupled to the respective rod; and the respective saddle is positioned external to the respective tube.
However, Melton et al. teach the respective stanchions comprise respective saddles (32) configured to receive the torque tube (56) of the solar panel assembly; each of the respective stanchions comprises a respective tube (Fig. 5) and a respective rod (28) positioned in the respective tube; the respective saddle of the each of the respective stanchions is coupled to the respective rod; (Fig. 5) and the respective saddle is positioned external to the respective tube. (Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a rod, saddle and tube to the apparatus of Shelton et al. as taught by Melton et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to optimize heights of the panels.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. and in view of Taha et al. 2020/0052644.
In Re Claim 24, Shelton et al. teach the apparatus of Claim 23 as discussed above.
Shelton et al. do not teach wherein: the solar panel assembly is a first solar panel assembly having a first number of solar panels and a first torque tube having a first length; and the method further comprises: forming a second solar panel assembly with a second number of solar panels different than the first number of solar panels and a second torque tube having a second length different than the first length.
However, Taha et al. teach wherein: the solar panel assembly is a first solar panel assembly having a first number of solar panels (201, Qty 6, Fig. 2) and a first torque tube (105 far left torque tube, Fig. 2) having a first length; and the method further comprises: forming a second solar panel assembly with a second number of solar panels (201, Qty 8, Fig. 2) different than the first number of solar panels and a second torque tube (105 torque tube second from left, Fig. 2)having a second length different than the first length. (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a second torque tube to the method of Shelton et al. as taught by Taha et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide additional space for solar panels.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. and in view of Bellacicco et al. 2012/0027550.
In Re Claim 25, Shelton et al. teach the apparatus of Claim 23 as discussed above.
Shelton et al. do not teach narrowing a respective gap between each of the solar panels.
However, Bellacicco et al. teach narrowing a respective gap between each of the solar panels. (Fig. 16a-16) (Paragraph 51)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add narrowing a respective gap between each of the solar panels in the method of Shelton et al. as taught by Bellacicco et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the footprint of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12-15, 17-22 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brulo et al., Schneider et al. and Baer teach an alignment system and torque tube for supporting solar panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
