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 Group I in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are not mutually exclusive. The examiner had read dependent claims and believed Group 1 was directed to figure 3, Group II was directed to figure 6A and Group III was directed to figure 6B, which are mutually exclusive. This was in error. All species are claimed in at least Group I. The examiner has elected not to refile the restriction as a species restriction. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the restriction among groups is withdrawn.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
The subject matter not shown in the drawings is the attachment of species designated by fig. 6B to the bracket 606B, attachment to the torque tube and rotation of the upper legs in relation to the torque tube.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 2 and 23, applicant recites “the torque tube clamp is rotatably coupled to the proximal end of the first leg about an axis transverse to the torque tube axis”. Discussion of this rotation is not found in the text of applicant’s disclosure. See rejection of these claims under second paragraph. The above limitations fail to comply with the written description, but are not considered new matter as they are contained in the original claims.
Claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 20 and 22, applicant recites “the torque tube clamp is further rotatably coupled to the proximal end portion of the first leg (bridge claim 22) about an axis parallel to and at a distance from the torque tube axis”. Discussion of this rotation is not found in the text of applicant’s disclosure and definition of the axis separate from the torque tube is not disclosed. See rejection of these claims under second paragraph. The above limitations fail to comply with the written description, but are not considered new matter as they are contained in the original claims.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation of “the pivot bracket comprises a Y-shaped top portion”, that is coupled to the proximal end of the first leg via a pin joint. Pivot brackets 206, 306, 406, 606 are not shown as Y-shaped and are not shown in that shape. The claim is not supported by applicant’s specification and therefore the applicant does not demonstrate how to utilize. The above limitations fail to comply with the written description, but are not considered new matter as they are contained in the original claims.
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.
Claim 1 and 11 recites the limitation "an axis" in lines 9 and 11 (claim 1) and line 7 (claim 11). Claims 2 and 12 recites the limitation “an axis” in line 2 (claims 2 and 12). These are different axis and must be identified. There is insufficient antecedent basis to distinguish each axis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 1 and 11 recites the limitations “axial movement” in line 12 (claims 1 and 2). It is unclear whether the axial movement is longitudinal axial movement or radial axial movement.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the axis transverse to the torque tube” in line 2. Applicant recites at least three axis transverse to the torque tube. It is unclear which axis is being referenced.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 23 all reference “the torque tube clamp is rotatably coupled to the proximal end of the first leg about an axis [in a specific direction] to the torque tube axis”. In claims 2 and 23, the direction is transverse. In claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 20, and 22, the direction is parallel. As stated under first paragraph, applicant does not address the “transverse” and “parallel” rotatable connection axis within applicant’s specification. Further, applicant has not provided complete drawings for the operation of the species shown in fig. 6B.
From the examiner’s understanding of the invention, the bracket (606[x]) and the clamps (232, 332,432, 532) are all rotatably connected in the same direction in relation to the proximal end (bridge, claim 22) of the leg and the torque tube. Claims 2 and 23 and Claims 2, 4, 9, 14, 17, 20 and 22 appear to be addressing two different rotatable connections, but applicant has used the exact same wording for both connections in the transverse and parallel directions for claims 4, 9, 14, 17 and 20 and therefore, the claims are indefinite. Claim 22 uses the claim language bridge as substitute for first leg proximal end, but this appears to be different name for the same structure. Consequently claim 22 is also indefinite.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10 173 1093).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 21, Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure (see abstract) comprising:
a torque tube (connecting rode 10, para [0030]) configured to span a length of a row of the solar tracker, the torque tube having a length (claim 21), defining a torque tube axis (X direction as shown in figs. 15-17) extending centrally therethrough;
a first ground pile (post P1-P4);
a first leg, the first leg comprising a first leg proximal end portion and a first leg distal end portion, the first leg distal portion rotatably coupled to the first ground pile (support leg, SL1-SL4) (see figs. 15-17);
a torque tube hinged connection (shown in figs. 15-17) coupled to the proximal end portion of the first leg (SL1-SL4), the torque hinged connection configured to support the torque tube (connecting rod 10) (shown in figs. 15-17);
wherein the first leg distal portion is rotatably coupled to the first ground pile, using a pin joint (claim 11, shown in figs. 15-17), about an axis transverse to the torque tube axis (i.e., the first leg (SL1-(SL-4) rotates about a Y axis, which is transverse the torque tube (10) axis which is in the X axis; and
wherein the torque tube (10) hinged connection is rotatably coupled to the proximal end portion of the first leg (SL1-SL4) about an axis (i.e. a Y axis) transverse to the torque tube (10) axis (X axis) such that axial movement (i.e., longitudinal movement along the torque tube axis) of the torque tube corresponds with rotational movement of the first leg with respect to the first ground pile (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Kim does not disclose the hinged connection between the proximal end of the first leg and the torque tube includes a torque tube clamp (claim 1) and bracket (claim 11). Kim does disclose a hinged connection between an arm (20) and a rod (328) (see fig. 14). Kim discloses the hinged connection includes a clamp (327) and a bracket (322) (parts of rod coupling unit 322 connected to 327) (see para [0065]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the hinged connection between the first leg and the torque tube of Kim with a hinged connection inclusive of a clamp/bracket as the court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (hinged connection inclusive of a clamp) according to known methods (as disclosed by Kim) to yield predictable results (i.e. a secure rotatable connection). See MPEP § 2143.
Further, tubes are known rods (see MPEP 2144.03). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a tube as the connecting rod in Kim as the court has held it is obvious to use a known technique (clamp 327/bracket 322) according to known method (disclosed by Kim) to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claims 2 and 23, modified Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claims 1 and 21, wherein the torque tube clamp (modified with clamp 327/bracket 322) is rotatably coupled (hinged connection) to the proximal end of the first leg (SL1-SL4) about an axis (axis of rotation of the hinge is in the pin direction, which is the Y direction) transverse to the torque tube axis (X direction) (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 1, wherein the torque tube axis is in an X direction, and the rotational axis of the hinged connections is transverse to the torque tube axis in the Y direction.
The limitation that the X direction is in a north-south direction and the Y direction is substantially in an east-west direction is based on the installation and is therefore intended use. Based on whether the solar cells rotation is used to for azimuthal or longitudinal rotation, the prior art is able to perform the intended use.
Regarding claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 20, and 22, modified Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claims 1, 5, 11, 15, 18 and 21 wherein the torque tube clamp (327) (see discussion of claim 1) is further rotatably coupled to the proximal end portion of the first leg (bridge claim 22) about an axis parallel to and at a distance from the torque tube axis (i.e., axis through the clamp is in the X direction, and rotatable connection is spaced apart from the torque tube by the bracket, which reads on parallel to the torque tube axis, and further the rotatable coupling is spaced apart from torque tube axis (or rod axis)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 1, further comprising:
a second leg i.e., the first and second leg comprising any of SL1 to SL4), the second leg comprising a second leg proximal end portion and a second leg distal end portion (see figs. 11, 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]);
a bridge (rod 10) extending between the first leg proximal end portion and the second leg proximal end portion; the bridge and the torque tube being integral (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
The court has held absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make a device integral or separable, as the use of a one piece construction instead of a multiple piece structure is merely a matter of engineering choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 5, wherein the torque tube clamp is disposed on the bridge (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 6, wherein the second leg distal end portion (SL1-SL4) is configured to couple to a second ground pile (P1-P4) (see figs. 11, 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 7, further comprising: a third leg (SL1-SL-4) coupled to a third ground pile (P1-P4), the third leg (SL1-SL4) comprising a third leg proximal end portion and a third leg distal end portion; and a fourth leg (SL1-SL4) coupled to a fourth ground pile (P1-P4), the fourth leg (SL1-SL4) comprising a fourth leg proximal end portion and a fourth leg distal end portion;
wherein the bridge (rod 10) extends between the first leg proximal end portion, the second leg proximal portion, the third leg proximal portion, and the fourth leg proximal portion (see discussion of claim 5) (see figs. 11, 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 1, wherein the first leg distal portion is rotatably coupled to the first ground pile via a pin joint (see discussion of claims 1, 11 and 21 above) (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim solar tracker support structure of claim 11, wherein the pivot bracket is rotatably coupled to the proximal end of the first leg about an axis transverse to the torque tube axis (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 11, wherein the pivot bracket comprises a top portion that is coupled to the proximal end of the first leg via a pin joint (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Kim does not disclose a Y-shaped pivot bracket. Y-shaped brackets are a well-known expedient in the art (see MPEP § 2144.03).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the pivot bracket (322) of Kim to be Y-shaped as the court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (Y-shaped pivot bracket) according to known methods (i.e., change of shape, see MPEP § 2144.04), wherein the results are predictable.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 11, wherein the ground support further comprises: a second ground pile (P1 to P4); a second leg (SL1-SL4) comprising a proximal end and a distal end, and a pin joint (shown in figs. 15-17) rotatably coupling the distal end of the second leg and the second ground pile about an axis transverse to the torque tube axis (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 16 and 19, Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 15 and 18, wherein the pivot bracket is located between the proximal end of the first leg and the proximal end of the second leg, which reads on extends between the proximal end of the first leg and the proximal end of the second leg (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses a solar tracker support structure of claim 15, further comprising: a third ground pile (P1-P4); a third leg comprising a proximal end and a distal end (SL1-SL4), and a pin joint rotatably coupling the distal end of the third leg and the third ground pile about an axis transverse to the torque tube axis (shown in figs. 11 and 15-17);
a fourth ground pile (P1-P4); a fourth leg comprising a proximal end and a distal end (SL1-SL4), and a pin joint rotatably coupling the distal end of the fourth leg and the fourth ground pile about an axis transverse to the torque tube axis (shown in figs. 11 and 15-17) (see figs. 15-17, para [0024]-[0034] and [0085]-[0088]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Whipple et al. (US 2010/0139645), Sgarrella (US 2021/0211091), Au et al. (US 2014/0216522), Plotkin et al. (US 20240429854) – accommodates longitudinal movement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights