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 without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 04 March 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04 March 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 7-9, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Owen (US Pub. No. 2019/0280641 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Owen teaches a solar array, comprising: an elongate support (70) having a proximal end and a distal end; a slew drive (100) coupled to the distal end of the elongate support (Para. 0027); and first and second pivotally coupled leaves (161, 165, Fig. 5) of solar panels (Para. 0035), wherein the first leaf is coupled to the slew drive (via 120).
In regards to claim 2, Owen teaches a base (80) coupled to the proximal end of the elongate support.
In regards to claim 3, Owen teaches the base (80) includes at least one energy storage system (Para. 0024).
In regards to claim 4, Owen teaches the base includes a cabinet (84, Fig. 2) housing the energy storage system.
In regards to claim 5, Owen teaches the elongate support (7) is coupled to a central portion of the base (80) (e.g.; see Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 7, Owen teaches a wheeled trailer (50) bearing the solar array.
In regards to claim 8, Owens teaches the solar array has maximum dimensions less than or equal to 102 inches in width and 264 inches in length in a folded configuration (Para. 0023).
In regards to claim 9, Owens teaches the first leaf is coupled to the slew drive via a torque tube (120) symmetrically extending from the slew drive.
In regards to claim 11, Owens teaches at least the first leaf (161) includes a hinged solar panel (162) rotatable with respect to a plane of the first leaf.
In regards to claim 12, Owens teaches a transport fixture (50) coupled to the proximal end of the elongate support.
In regard to claim 14, Owens teaches a system, comprising: a wheeled vehicle (50) including a bed (60) bearing at least one solar array in accordance with Claim 12.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen (US Pub. No. 2019/0280641 A1) in view of Prentice et al. (US Pat. No. 11,247,615 B2).
In regards to claim 6, Owen teaches the base includes a load-bearing surface including a contact surface configured to support the second leaf (e.g.; see outer surface of 80 in Fig. 2). Owen does not particularly teach a low friction contact surface. Prentice teaches a low friction contact surface (117; i.e.; metal) (Col 15, Lines 11-15).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Owen’s apparatus to have a low friction contact surface. The motivation would be for the purpose of protecting the solar panel as taught by Prentice (Col 15, Lines 11-15).
Claims 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen (US Pub. No. 2019/0280641 A1) in view of Gerwing et al. (US Pat. No. 10,720,541 B2).
In regards to claim 10, Owen does not teach the first and second leaves are pivotally coupled by one or more hinges having a hinge axis spaced apart from the torque tube. Gerwing teaches first and second leaves (78, 80, Fig. 6) are pivotally coupled by one or more hinges (90) having a hinge axis spaced apart from the torque tube (44).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Owen’s apparatus such that the first and second leaves are pivotally coupled by one or more hinges having a hinge axis spaced apart from the torque tube. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing solar panels to be folded over and face one another in a minimum volume-shipping configuration as taught by Gerwing (Col 5, Lines 22-44).
In regards to claim 15, Owen teaches a solar array, comprising: an elongate support (70) having a proximal end and a distal end; a slew drive (100) coupled to the distal end of the elongate support (Para. 0027); first and second leaves (161, 165, Fig. 5) of solar panels, wherein: the first leaf is coupled to the slew drive via a torque tube (120) symmetrically extending from the slew drive; a base (80) having a central portion coupled to the proximal end of the elongate support, the base including a load-bearing surface configured to support a second leaf among the multiple leaves (e.g.; see outside surface of 80 in Fig. 2).
Owen does not teach the second leaf is pivotally coupled to the first leaf by one or more hinges having a hinge axis spaced apart from the torque tube. Gerwing teaches a second leaf (80) is pivotally coupled to a first leaf (78) by one or more hinges (90) having a hinge axis spaced apart from the torque tube (44).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Owen’s apparatus such that the second leaf is pivotally coupled to the first leaf by one or more hinges having a hinge axis spaced apart from the torque tube. The motivation would be for the purpose of allowing solar panels to be folded over and face one another in a minimum volume-shipping configuration as taught by Gerwing (Col 5, Lines 22-44).
In regards to claim 16, modified Owen teaches at least one energy storage system (Owen: Para. 0024).
In regards to claim 17, modified Owen teaches a wheeled trailer (Owen: 50) bearing the solar array.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen (US Pub. No. 2019/0280641 A1) in view of Azzam et al. (US Pat. No. 6,201,181 B1).
In regards to claim 13, Owen does not teach at least one chassis lock pin coupled to the chassis and configured to cooperate with the crossbar of the first or second leaves to secure the crossbar with respect to the chassis.
Azzam teaches at least one chassis lock pin (172, Fig. 6) coupled to a chassis (via 174) and configured to cooperate with the crossbar of a first or second leaf (4) of a solar panel to secure the crossbar with respect to the chassis.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Owen’s apparatus to include at least one chassis lock pin coupled to the chassis and configured to cooperate with the crossbar of the first or second leaves to secure the crossbar with respect to the chassis. The motivation would be for the purpose of locking the solar panel against pivotal movement during rolling mode as arrangement as taught by Azzam (Col 5, Lines 62-67 to Col 6, Lines 1-7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
