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 and Species A directed to claims 1 and 7-9 in the reply filed on 27 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group of inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 7 and 9 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 7 recites “(b) a motor assembly having a motor shaft” but later recites “wherein the motor assembly has a motor shaft…” and later makes recitations to “the motor shaft” and “said motor shaft” where it’s unclear if claim 7 means to recite two separate motor shafts and if so, which one is being referenced by the later recitations of “the motor shaft” or “said motor shaft”. As such, the scope of claim 7 cannot be reasonably determined as is rendered indefinite.
Claim 9 is also rendered indefinite by depending from indefinite claim 7.
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.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALON et al (FR 3077463A1, reference made to English machine translation provided in IDS filed 07 July 2025), and further in view of AHMED (US 2020/0173229) or alternatively in view of Nagai et al (US 2020/0252027).
Regarding claim 7 MALON discloses a solar panel array comprising:
a solar panel support structure spaced from the ground at a desired height (Figs. 11A-11C see: primary frame 22 and at least one cable 140);
at least one single axis tracker mounted to said support structure (Pages 12-13/Lines 542-569, Figs. 11A-11C and 12A-12G see: carriages 151 have sensors 10 (photovoltaic panels) mounted to cable 140 and rails 150 of primary frame 22), said single axis tracker including (a) a roller for selectively displacing said single axis tracker horizontally across said solar panel support structure (Pages 12-13/Lines 565-569, Figs. 12A-12G see: carriages 151 have wheels 70 rolling on upper face of rails 150) (b) a motor assembly having a motor shaft (c) a base; and (d) a bearing assembly mounted to said base enabling the motor assembly to rotate the motor shaft about a center axis thereof (Pages 12-13/Lines 565-582, Figs. 12C-12F see: carriages 151 (base) have illustrated bearing for shafts 152 allowing rotation of sensors 10 rotated by motor(s) 57);
wherein the motor assembly has a motor shaft with first and second ends (Pages 12-13/Lines 565-582, Figs. 12C-12F see: shafts 152); and
wherein respective solar panels of said plurality of solar panels are secured to said first and second ends of the motor shaft (Pages 12-13/Lines 565-582, Figs. 12C-12F see: shaft 152 having sensors (PV panels) 10 mounted across both ends);
at least a pair of columns for supporting the solar panel support structure to the ground (Figs. 11A-11C see: uprights 21); and
wherein said motor assembly causes rotation of said motor shaft which in turn causes rotation of said plurality of solar panels (Pages 12-13/Lines 565-582, Figs. 12C-12F see: motor 57 droves rotation of sensors 10).
In the alternative where it’s not clear that MALON discloses a motor assembly with motor shaft for causing rotation of said at least one solar panel about a center axis thereof as part of the single axis tracker, such that respective solar panels of said plurality of solar panels are secured to said first and second ends of the motor shaft AHMED teaches it’s known to provide a motor assembly for causing rotation of a solar panel about a center axis thereof as part of the single axis tracker (AHMED, [0066]-[0067], Figs. 1A and 2 see: sunshade 105 with solar cells 122 mounted thereon rotatably mounted to shaft 164 of motor 160) and Nagai teaches a solar tracker support where photovoltaic panels 1 are mounted to either end of shaft 6 extending from either side of a motor drive device 5 (Nagai, paras [0055]-[0056], Fig. 1).
AHMED or Nagai and MALON are combinable as they are each concerned with the field of solar panel arrays.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of MALON in view of AHMED or Nagai such that the single axis tracker of MALON comprises a motor assembly with motor shaft for causing rotation of said at least one solar panel about a center axis thereof as part of the single axis tracker, such that respective solar panels of said plurality of solar panels are secured to said first and second ends of the motor shaft as taught by AHMED (AHMED, [0066]-[0067], Figs. 1A and 2 see: sunshade 105 with solar cells 122 mounted thereon rotatably mounted to shaft 164 of motor 160) or Nagai (Nagai, paras [0055]-[0056], Fig. 1) as such a modification would have amounted to the use of a known solar tracker motor configuration for its intended use in the known environment of a single axis solar tracker to accomplish the entirely expected result of rotating the solar panel about a center axis thereof.
Regarding claim 9 modified MALON discloses the solar panel array of claim 7 further including: a control module communicating with said motor assembly for selective control of the position of said plurality of solar panels (MALON, Pages 9-10/Lines 417-457, Figs. 1A-1C, see: sensors 10 are translated along X-axis and rotatable around Y-axis by actuator 30 having the motor which are controlled by a computer/calculator 40).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,355,391. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims 1 and 3 of the ‘391 patent claim substantially the same solar panel array with the same single axis tracker design of instant claims 1 and 7 and the limitations of claims 8 and 9 are recited in claims 2 and 4 of the ‘391 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 8 would be allowable if applicant overcomes the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of these claims as set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1 the prior art of MALON et al (FR 3077463A1, see English machine translation) teaches in Pages 12-13/Lines 542-569, Figs. 11A-11C and 12A-12G see: carriages 151 with sensors 10 (photovoltaic panels) on shafts 152 connected to cable 140 and having wheels 70 rolling on upper face of rails 150 of primary frame 22 raised by uprights 21. The shafts with mounted panels are rotated by motor(s) 57. Thus MALON differs from the claimed invention of claim 1 at least in that the roller of the single axis tracker is mounted on a rail not a cable as claimed and does not teach where said solar panel structure including a horizontally extending cable upon which said roller is mounted so that said roller directly contacts said cable and when said single axis tracker is displaced horizontally across said solar panel structure, a weight of the at least one single axis tracker is applied to said cable by said roller.
The other prior art of record does not make up for the deficiencies of MALON and claim 1 and its dependent claim 8 would be allowable if applicant overcomes the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of these claims as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights