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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending and examined below.
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).
Specifically, the embodiment of claims 2 and 3 are not shown in a drawing. Since applicant has claimed the subject matter and is relying on the subject matter for patentability, a drawing of the embodiment is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by either Michotte De Welle et al. (US 2016/0013751) (hereafter Welle), or for the alternative claimed embodiment Corio (US 2015/0234031). Specifically, at least claim 2 and at least claims 3, 4, are alternative embodiments with claim 1 being a linking claim. Embodiment of claim 2 is rejected over Welle. Embodiment of Claims 3 and 4 are rejected over Corio.
Regarding claim 1, Welle discloses a tracking system for adjusting a solar array, the tracking system comprising:
a first support column (a column of fixed ground anchor structure 21);
a torque rail (beam 23) connected to the first support column (21) for supporting panels of a first row of the solar array (1, 2) (see fig. 1, abstract and para [0070]-[0073]);
a primary drive assembly (drive system 24, 25, 26) comprising an actuator (worm gear 241,242) mounted on the first support column (21), the actuator driving rotation of the torque rail (beam 23) (see figs. 3, 6 and 7, para [0076]);
a second support column spaced from the first support column (a column of second fixed ground anchor structure, shown in fig. 1);
a secondary drive assembly mounted on the second support column (shown in fig. 2) (shows 24 at two locations); and
an axle (cable 40, or driveshaft 42) connecting the primary drive assembly to the secondary drive assembly (shown in fig. 2), the primary drive assembly and the secondary drive assembly cooperating to rotate the solar array (see figs. 1-16, para [0070]-[0091]).
Alternate claimed embodiment rejected over Corio:
Regarding claim 1, Corio discloses a tracking system for adjusting a solar array, the tracking system comprising:
a first support column (32);
a torque rail (torsion beam 34) connected to the first support column for supporting panels of a first row of the solar array (shown in fig. 3, para [0074]);
a primary drive assembly (gear drive system 16)) comprising an actuator (motor 50, worm gear 21) mounted on the first support column (32), the actuator driving rotation of the torque rail (34) (shown in fig. 5) (see para [0072]-[0074]);
a second support column (32) spaced from the first support column (32) (shown in fig. 3);
a secondary drive assembly (16) mounted on the second support column (32) (shown in fig. 3); and
an axle (25) connecting the primary drive assembly (16) to the secondary drive assembly (16), the primary drive assembly and the secondary drive assembly cooperating to rotate the solar array (see figs. 3-5, para [0070]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 2, Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 1, wherein the second column (21) supports the panels (22) of the first row and the torque rail (23) is connected to the second support column (shown in figs. 1 and 2),
the torque rail (23) defining a rotational axis about which the panels (22) of the first row rotate, and wherein the second support column (21) is spaced from the first support column (21) along the rotational axis (shown in figs. 1 and 2, para [0007]-[0010] and [0070]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 3, Corio discloses a tracking system of claim 1, wherein the second support column supports additional panels of a second row of the solar array (shown in fig. 3), wherein the actuator (motor 50, worm gear 21) is configured to rotate the first row and the second row of the solar array (see figs. 3-5, para [0070]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 5, Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 1, wherein the secondary drive assembly includes a connection device (ring gear sector 240) and a drive linkage (bearing 210) connecting the connection device to the torque rail (23) (see figs. 6 and 7, para [0076]).
Regarding claim 7, Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 1, wherein the axle is oriented generally parallel to the torque rail and is positioned below the torque rail (shown in figs. 1 and 2, see para [0007]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 1, wherein the axle extends through the second support column (shown in fig. 2, see para [0070]-[0093]).
Regarding claim 9, Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 1, wherein the actuator (worm gear 241, 242) is positioned below the torque rail (shown in figs. 6-8, see para [0007]-[0012] and [0070]-[0093]).
Regarding claim 13, Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 1, wherein the actuator (3) is directly mounted to the support column (shown in fig. 6, see para [0070]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 14, Corio discloses a tracking system of claim 1, wherein the actuator includes a slew drive (i.e., alternative to worm gear in drive system 16, see para , the slew drive including a motor (50), a shaft (gear output shaft 42) driven by the motor (50), and a rotating member (gear wheel 22) connected to the shaft (42) (shown in fig. 5) (see para [0070]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 15, Corio discloses a tracking system of claim 1 further comprising a controller for controlling the actuator to adjust the torque rail such that the solar array follows a path of the sun (azimuthal path) (see para [0079]).
Regarding claim 16, Corio discloses a tracking system of claim 1, wherein the primary drive assembly (16) is operable to rotate two or more rows of the solar array (see discussion of claim 3) (see figs. 3-5, para [0070]-[0074]) .
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.
Claim 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welle et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further as follows:
Regarding claim 10, Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 1, but does not disclose in the embodiment cited, the system further comprising:
a mounting member connected to the torque rail; and
a link connected to the actuator and connected to the mounting member at an attachment point, the attachment point being spaced from the torque rail.
In an alternate embodiment, Welle discloses the system further comprising:
a mounting member (transmission arm 252, shown connected to panels 22 in fig. 11, one each side) connected to the torque rail (23); and
a link (link mechanism 25 (incl 251, 250, through hinge 253) connected to the actuator (actuation system 3) and connected to the mounting member (252) at an attachment point (hine 255), the attachment point being spaced from the torque rail (shown in figs. 9-14, para [0077]-[0096]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known actuation and linkage system (i.e., as disclosed by Welle as shown in figs. 9-14) for another known actuation and linkage system (i.e., as disclosed by Welle as shown in figs. 1-8), as Welle discloses the systems to be alternatives and wherein the result is predictable. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 11, Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 10 further comprising a link holder (hinge 253) connecting the link to the actuator, and wherein the link includes a rocker arm (251) pivotally attached to the link holder (hinge 253) and the mounting member (252) (see figs. 11-14, para [0077]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 10, wherein the mounting member (252) includes one of a mounting arm that extends from the torque rail (see figs. 11-14).
In regards to a sprocket and a pulley, the examiner elects not to examine optional (listed in the alternative) limitations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corio et al. as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Corio et al. (US 2008/0308091) (Corio-2).
Regarding claim 4, Corio discloses a tracking system of claim 3, but does not disclose wherein the solar array is arranged on variable terrain such that a height of the first row is different from a height of the second row.
Corio-2 is analogous art to Corio as Corio-2 discloses a solar array tracking system comprising a primary drive system (see abstract). Corio-2, analogous to Corio discloses wherein the second support column (22) supports additional panels of a second row of the solar array (shown in fig. 2), wherein the actuator (motor 14, worm gear 26) is configured to rotate the first row and the second row of the solar array (through drive shaft 28) (see figs. 3-5, para [0048]-[0050]). Corio-2 discloses wherein the solar array is arranged on variable terrain such that a height of the first row is different from a height of the second row (i.e., by use of articulating joints for the drive shaft, see fig. 4, para [0051]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., articulating joints for the drive shaft of Corio-2) for another known device (i.e., the joints for the drive shaft of Corio), wherein the result is predictable (i.e, ability to accommodate uneven terrain; rows within the array at different heights as disclosed by Corio-2). See MPEP § 2143.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welle et al. as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Menard (US 2015/03272636).
Regarding claim 6, Welle discloses a tracking system of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein the connection device includes one of a sprocket, a gear, and a pulley and wherein the drive linkage includes one of a chain, a belt, and a wire.
Menard is analogous art to Welle as Menard discloses a tracking photovoltaic solar system (see abstract). Menard discloses wherein the drive system includes a connection device wherein the connection device includes one of a sprocket, gear, and a pulley (specifically pulley 129) and wherein the drive linkage (i.e. connects pulley to torque tube 131) includes one of a chain, a belt, and a wire (specifically wire rope 125) (see para [0226]).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., pulley and wire disclosed by Menard to connect the actuator to the torque tube) for another known device (i.e., the partial gear and drive linkage of Welle), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., the actuator connects to the torque bar and rotates it).
Conclusion
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