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 with traverse of species C in the reply filed on 5/4/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because species C specifically does not require a second inner ring. As shown in Fig. 3E, the outer ring 324/334/360 is a wholly separate element from inner ring 322b/332b/330b. Fig. 4 shows that some structure that was in the inner ring 322b/332b/330b has been incorporated into outer ring 422b/424/460. Therefore the two species are not mutually exclusive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 is interpreted as invoking 112(f), because of the inclusion of “means for connecting” and “means for applying a rotational torque”. As such, the specification is consulted for the sufficient structure. Specifically, page 19-20 of the specification recites a means for connecting 420, further narrowed to a first torque tube coupler, a second torque tube coupler, an outer ring comprising interior grooves, an inner ring comprising exterior grooves, and a plurality of rollers positioned between the exterior grooves of the inner ring and the interior grooves of the outer ring, also illustrated in instant Figures 4. As subsequent claims such as claim 8 recite additional structure it and its dependents are not interpreted as invoking 112(f).
Page 20 of the specification recites a means for applying a rotational torque 450, narrowing the means to a drive mechanism comprising a motor and a worm gear. As subsequent claims 9 and 10 recite additional structure they are not interpreted as invoking 112(f).
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0129712 to Nanez.
Regarding claims 17, Nanez teaches a system for coupling torque tube sections at variable angles in a solar tracking system comprising
A first torque tube coupler 72 (Figs. 8-10, ¶0075-0077) configured to be coupled to a first torque tube section (for instance, the torque tube section 14 on the left in the frame of Fig. 1, ¶0063), the first torque tube coupler being fixed to an inner ring that includes exterior grooves
A second torque tube coupler 90 (p. 11, 12, ¶0078-0080) configured to be coupled to a second torque tube section (torque tube section 14 on the right in Fig. 1), the outer ring including interior grooves (radially arrayed round grooves forming part of 120a, ¶0082)
A plurality of rollers (plurality of roller bearings” of ¶0082) positioned between the exterior grooves of the inner ring 82 and the interior grooves of the outer ring 120.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0129712 to Nanez, and further in view of US 2019/0024764 to Plesniak.
Regarding claims 1 and 8-10, Nanez teaches a system for connecting and rotating torque tube sections at variable angles in a solar tracking system comprising
A first torque tube section (for instance, the torque tube section 14 on the left in the frame of Fig. 1, ¶0063)
A second torque tube section (torque tube section 14 on the right in Fig. 1), wherein the first torque tube section and the second torque tube section are not collinear (Fig. 3, ¶0065, 0066)
A connector (Fig. 4) including
Means for connecting the first torque section with the second torque tube section such that rotational movement from the first torque tube section is translated to the second torque tube section (see discussion below).
As 112(f) is invoked by the claim, the means for connecting is limited by the specification, and is interpreted to have the structure described in pages 19-20 of the specifications. Nanez anticipates this structure, and the structure of claim 8, as it teaches that the means for connecting includes
A first torque tube coupler 72 (Figs. 8-10, ¶0075-0077) fixed to an inner ring 82 and coupled to the first torque tube section (via left cradle 130 of Fig. 4, which may be mislabeled “120”; Fig. 14, ¶0067, 0073, 0083), the inner ring including exterior grooves
A second torque tube coupler 90 (p. 11, 12, ¶0078-0080) fixed to an outer ring 120 (Fig. 13, ¶0081) that surrounds the inner ring 82 and coupled to the second torque tube section (via right cradle 130), the outer ring including interior grooves (radially arrayed round grooves forming part of 120a, ¶0082)
A plurality of rollers (“plurality of roller bearings” of ¶0082) positioned between the exterior grooves of the inner ring 82 and the interior grooves of the outer ring 120.
While the torque tube sections are clearly intended to rotate (a skilled artisan would understand that Nanez teaches a solar tracker, which a skilled artisan would understand to rotate to follow the sun, see ¶0003 of Plesniak), Nanez does not specifically teach a means for applying a rotational torque to a component of the means for connecting the first torque tube section with the second torque tube section. Plesniak teaches that rotation necessary for the tracker to function can be provided by the structure of that invention (see Fig. 15, which shows similar torque tubes 40, 41), and that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a means for applying a rotational torque to the means for connecting in order to enable balanced rotation with a low operation cost (¶0004, 0046, 0063, 0064).
As 112(f) is invoked by the claim, the means for applying a rotational torque is limited by the specification, and is interpreted to have the structure described in page 20 of the specifications. Plesniak teaches that the means for applying a rotational torque of modified-Nanez comprises a motor and a worm gear (95, 45 of Figs. 22, 17, 21). Further, per claims 9 and 10, Plesniak teaches that the desired benefits can be achieved if the means for applying a rotational torque includes a gear (45) which is a worm gear that includes a drive axle (cylindrical body 47) and a worm (46) (¶0049, 0056), so that the worm may interact with a plurality of teeth 70 formed on an outer surface of a ring (Fig. 19, ¶0052). Fig. 4 of Nanez in fact teaches that an outer surface of a ring of that invention has texture similar to teeth (see specifically where arrow “70” is pointing; MPEP §2125). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the outer surface of the outer ring with a plurality of teeth so that the worm of the worm gear of modified-Nanez can provide rotational torque to the first and second torque tube couplers through the outer ring.
Regarding claim 18, Nanez teaches the limitations of claim 17. While the torque tube sections of Nanez are clearly intended to rotate (a skilled artisan would understand that Nanez teaches a solar tracker, which a skilled artisan would understand to rotate to follow the sun, see ¶0003 of Plesniak), Nanez does not specifically teach a means for applying a rotational torque to a component. Plesniak teaches that rotation necessary for the tracker to function can be provided by the structure of that invention (see Fig. 15, which shows similar torque tubes 40, 41), and that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a means for applying a rotational torque to the means for connecting in order to enable balanced rotation with a low operation cost (¶0004, 0046, 0063, 0064).
Plesniak teaches that the desired benefits can be achieved if the means for applying a rotational torque includes a gear (45) which is a worm gear that includes a drive axle (cylindrical body 47) and a worm (46) (¶0049, 0056), so that the worm may interact with a plurality of teeth 70 formed on an outer surface of a ring (Fig. 19, ¶0052). Fig. 4 of Nanez in fact teaches that an outer surface of a ring of that invention has texture similar to teeth (see specifically where arrow “70” is pointing; MPEP §2125). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the outer surface of the outer ring with a plurality of teeth so that the worm of the worm gear of modified-Nanez can provide rotational torque to the first and second torque tube couplers through the outer ring.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights