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 . 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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the top surface of the bolt being flush with or below a level of outer surfaces of the first and second torque tube segments, as set forth in claims 7 and 14, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract is objected to for beginning with a phrase which can be implied. See “A first embodiment of” in line 1. See MPEP 608.01(b). The Examiner notes simply removing this phrase and beginning the abstract with --A torque tube coupler…-- would overcome this objection and place the abstract in proper form. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 first sets forth first and second torque tube segments as part of an intended used of a torque tube coupler in lines 2-4. However, claim 5 goes on to positively recited limitations directed to the first and second torque tube segments in lines 2-6. Therefore, it is unclear from the claim whether Applicant is intending to claim the combination of the torque tube coupler, first torque tube segment, and second torque tube segment, or only the subcombination of the torque tube coupler.
For the purpose of this action, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as being directed to only the subcombination of the torque tube coupler, given the preamble of the claim, and the fact that the combination is clearly claimed in claims 8-14. As such, limitations directed to structure not a part of the torque tube coupler itself are given limited patentable weight, and should be provided with functional language, such as “configured to”, to clearly denote the claims are intended to be directed to the subcombination of the torque tube coupler. Claim 6 inherits this issue for depending upon claim 5. Claim 7 also sets forth positive limitations of the first and second torque tube segments and should likewise be corrected.
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, 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 1335702 (Davies).
Regarding claim 1, Davies discloses a torque tube coupler (see Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
an elongated body (11) having a first end, a second end, and a middle section (see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the first end is configured to fit within a first torque tube segment and the second end is configured to fit within a second torque tube segment (see page 1, lines 10-15);
a bracket (12) secured to the middle section of the elongated body via a bolt (13; see Figure 2), the bracket having a first side that faces the first end of the elongated body and a second side that faces the second end of the elongated body (see annotated Figure 1 below);
a first arm (see annotated Figure 1 below) having an anchored end (see annotated Figure 1 below) that is secured to the first side of the bracket and a free end (see annotated Figure 1 below) that extends toward the first end of the elongated body, wherein a tightening of the bolt and movement of the bracket toward the elongated body forces the free end of the first arm away from the elongated body (see page 1, line 89, through page 2, line 17); and
a second arm (see annotated Figure 1 below) having an anchored end (see annotated Figure 1 below) that is secured to the second side of the bracket and a free end (see annotated Figure 1 below) that extends toward the second end of the elongated body, wherein a tightening of the bolt and movement of the bracket toward the elongated body forces the free end of the second arm away from the elongated body (see page 1, line 89, through page 2, line 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1 of Davies
Regarding claim 7, Davies discloses a top surface of the bolt (13) is flush with or below a level of outer surfaces of the first and second torque tube segments (see page 2, lines 46-50; see also 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 8, Davies discloses a system for coupling torque tube segments (see Figures 1 and 2), the system comprising:
a first torque tube segment (see page 1, lines 10-15);
a second torque tube segment (see page 1, lines 10-15); and
a torque tube coupler (see Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
an elongated body (11) having a first end, a second end, and a middle section (see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein the first end is configured to fit within a first torque tube segment and the second end is configured to fit within a second torque tube segment (see page 1, lines 10-15);
a bracket (12) secured to the middle section of the elongated body via a bolt (13; see Figure 2), the bracket having a first side that faces the first end of the elongated body and a second side that faces the second end of the elongated body (see annotated Figure 1 below);
a first arm (see annotated Figure 1 above) having an anchored end (see annotated Figure 1 above) that is secured to the first side of the bracket and a free end (see annotated Figure 1 above) that extends toward the first end of the elongated body, wherein a tightening of the bolt and movement of the bracket toward the elongated body forces the free end of the first arm away from the elongated body (see page 1, line 89, through page 2, line 17); and
a second arm (see annotated Figure 1 above) having an anchored end (see annotated Figure 1 above) that is secured to the second side of the bracket and a free end (see annotated Figure 1 above) that extends toward the second end of the elongated body, wherein a tightening of the bolt and movement of the bracket toward the elongated body forces the free end of the second arm away from the elongated body (see page 1, line 89, through page 2, line 17).
Regarding claim 14, Davies discloses a top surface of the bolt (13) is flush with or below a level of outer surfaces of the first and second torque tube segments (see page 2, lines 46-50; see also 112 rejection above).
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.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies in view of US 5,860,253 (Lapointe).
Davies discloses the torque tube coupler of claim 1 and the system of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose
an exterior surface of the first arm (see annotated Figure 1 above) includes a texture that increases a frictional force between the first arm and the first torque tube segment; and
an exterior surface of the second arm (see annotated Figure 1 above) includes a texture that increases a frictional force between the second arm and the second torque tube segment.
Lapointe teaches it is known in the art of tube couplers to provide textured surfaces in order to increase the frictional force between the coupler and the tubes to be coupled (see column 4, lines 9-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque tube coupler of Davies such that an exterior surface of the first arm includes a texture and an exterior surface of the second arm includes a texture, as taught in Lapointe, in order to increase the frictional force between a respective arm and torque tube segment.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies in view of US 10,082,167 (Peverada).
Davies discloses the torque tube coupler of claim 1 and the system of claim 8, wherein:
the first arm (see annotated Figure 1 above) is configured to engage with a first internal side of the first torque tube segment (see page 1, line 89, through page 2, line 17); and
the second arm (see annotated Figure 1 above) is configured to engage with a first internal side of the second torque tube segment (see page 1, line 89, through page 2, line 17).
Davies does not expressly disclose the first and second torque tube segments have polygonal cross-sectional shapes.
Peverada teaches it is a design choice known in the art of tube couplers to choose between a circular/cylindrical torque tube segment (such as in Davies), or a polygonal shape (see column 3, lines 41-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque tube coupler of Davies such that the first and second torque tube segments have polygonal cross-sectional shapes, as Peverada teaches it is a design choice known in the art of tube couplers to choose between a circular/cylindrical torque tube segment, or a polygonal shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 13 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Davies discloses the torque tube coupler of claim 1 and the system of claim 8, but fails to disclose
the elongated body (11) includes an external surface that defines a channel that extends from the first end to the second end; and therefore, also fails to disclose the bracket (12), the first arm (see annotated Figure 1 above), and the second arm (see annotated Figure 1 above) are positioned within the channel.
The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Davies such that the elongated body includes an external surface that defines a channel that extends from the first end to the second end; and the first arm, and the second arm are positioned within the channel. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make such a modification to Davies, as it would teach away from the intended simplistic structure of Davies, which provides for two elements (10, 11) which are cut from a short length of tubing (see page 1, lines 59-63). As such, providing a channel in the elongated body (11) would teach away from this intended structure, as it would require further processing steps.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Davies discloses the torque tube coupler of claim 1 and the system of claim 8, but fails to disclose the free end of the first arm (see annotated Figure 1 above) extends beyond the first end of the elongated body (11) and the free end of the second arm (see annotated Figure 1 above) extends beyond the second end of the elongated body.
The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Davies such that the free end of the first arm extends beyond the first end of the elongated body and the free end of the second arm extends beyond the second end of the elongated body. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make such a modification to Davies, as it would teach away from the intended simplistic structure of Davies, which provides for two elements (10, 11) which are cut from a short length of tubing (see page 1, lines 59-63). As such, providing a channel in the elongated body (11) would teach away from this intended structure, as it would require further processing steps.
Regarding claim 13, Davies discloses the system of claim 12, but fails to disclose the torque tube coupler further comprises:
a second bracket secured to the middle section of the elongated body (11) via a second bolt, the second bracket having a first side that faces the first end of the elongated body and a second side that faces the second end of the elongated body;
a third arm having an anchored end that is secured to the first side of the second bracket and a free end that extends toward the first end of the elongated body, wherein a tightening of the second bolt and movement of the second bracket toward the elongated body forces the free end of the third arm away from the elongated body; and
a fourth arm having an anchored end that is secured to the second side of the second bracket and a free end that extends toward the second end of the elongated body, wherein a tightening of the second bolt and movement of the second bracket toward the elongated body forces the free end of the fourth arm away from the elongated body;
wherein:
the third arm is configured to engage with a second internal side of the first torque tube segment; and
the fourth arm is configured to engage with a second internal side of the second torque tube segment.
The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Davies to provide such a second bracket, third arm, and fourth arm. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make such a modification to Davies, as it would teach away from the intended simplistic structure of Davies, which provides for two elements (10, 11) which are cut from a short length of tubing (see page 1, lines 59-63). As such, providing a channel in the elongated body (11) would teach away from this intended structure, as it would require further processing steps. Further still, even if a third and fourth arm could be provided on the torque tube coupler of Davies, it would not be possible to provide a second bracket, given the bracket (12) extends fully around the torque tube coupler of Davies (see Figures 1 and 2).
Claim 6 would be allowable, for the same reasons noted above regarding claim 13, 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
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure in the field of torque tube couplers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached on (571)270-5281. 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
October 7, 2026
