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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 06/25/2026. Claims 10-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worden in view of Boucher et al. (U.S. Pat. 4667915).
Regarding claim 10, Worden discloses a counterbalance assembly 346 in a photovoltaic
(PV) tracking system (as seen in Fig. 7), the counterbalance assembly 346 comprising: a top
bracket 349 configured to be secured to a torque tube 350 such that the top bracket 349
rotates with the torque tube 350 about an axis of rotation between a first rotational limit in a
first direction and a second rotational limit in a second direction; a bottom bracket (as shown in
Fig. 7 below) configured to be secured to a column 348 supporting the torque tube 350; and a
stretchable member 347 having a top end 349 and a bottom end 351, the top end 349 being
connected to the top bracket 349 and the bottom end 351 being connected to the bottom
bracket (as seen in Fig. 7 below).
With regards to claim 10, Worden is discussed above and teaches the counterbalance assembly. However, Worden fails to teach a pin and slot connection that includes the pin and slot, where the pin and slot connection allows a connection point between the stretchable member 347 and the at least one of the top bracket 349 or the bottom bracket to move within the slot such that a rate at which a restorative force is applied by the stretchable member 347 is reduced as the torque tube rotates toward the first or second rotational limits. Boucher teaches a counterbalance assembly (see Fig. 1), having a stretchable member 40, and further comprising: a pin 36 and slot 34 connection where the stretchable member 40 is connected to a pin 36 (via 4) that is positioned within a slot 34, where the pin 36 and slot 34 connection allows a connection point between the stretchable member 40 and the at least one of the top bracket or the bottom bracket to move within the slot 34 such that a rate at which the restorative force increases as the torque tube rotates toward the first or second rotational limits is reduced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Worden to have a pin and slot connection, in order to allow for positional adjustment of at least one of the ends of the stretching member, as taught to be desirable by Boucher (see discussion in col. 3, lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 14, Worden is discussed above, and teaches the counterbalance assembly 346 above, but fails to teach where the means for limiting comprises: a linkage positioned between the stretchable member 347 and at least one of the top bracket 349 or the bottom bracket, where the linkage is secured to the at least one of the top bracket 349 or the bottom bracket through a pivot joint such that, as the torque tube 350 rotates toward the first or second rotational limits, a connection point between the stretchable member 347 and the linkage pivots about the pivot joint in a rotational direction that is opposite to a rotational direction of the torque tube 350. Boucher teaches a counterbalance assembly (see Fig. 1), having a stretchable member 40, and further comprising means for limiting where the means for limiting comprises: a linkage 6 positioned between the stretchable member 40 and at least one of the top bracket or the bottom bracket, where the linkage 6 is secured to the at least one of the top bracket or the bottom bracket through a pivot joint such that, as the torque tube rotates toward the first or second rotational limits, a connection point between the stretchable member 40 and the linkage 6 pivots about the pivot joint in a rotational direction that is opposite to a rotational direction of the torque tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Worden to have a linkage, in order to allow for pivotal movement from a first position to a second position, as taught to be desirable by Boucher (see discussion in col. 2, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 11, Boucher teaches the counterbalance assembly, where the slot 34 is symmetric about a vertical axis (as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Boucher teaches the counterbalance assembly, where the slot 34 is positioned about a vertical axis. However, Boucher fails to teach where the slot is asymmetric about a vertical axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reposition the slot 34 of Boucher because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2141, III.(D)).
Regarding claim 13, Worden teaches the counterbalance assembly 346, where the stretchable member 347 is a spring (as discussed in para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, Boucher teaches the counterbalance assembly, further comprising one or more stops (i.e. ends of slots 34) which prevent the linkage 6 from moving in a specific direction.
Regarding claim 16, Boucher teaches the counterbalance assembly, where a first stop is included on a first side of the linkage 6 and a second stop is included on a second side of the linkage 6 (i.e. the sides of link 4).
Regarding claim 17, Worden teaches the counterbalance assembly 346, where the rotational threshold is less than 45 degrees in a counterclockwise direction of rotation and/or less than 45 degrees in a clockwise direction of rotation. The Examiner again notes that Worden discloses where his rotational limits are adjustable by the use of coaxial projections, which would allow the user to adjust the rotational threshold (see discussion in para. [0032], lines 8-11)
Regarding claim 18, Worden teaches the counterbalance assembly 346, where the stretchable member 347 is a spring (as discussed in para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 19, Worden and Boucher teach the counterbalance assembly 346, where: the linkage 6 is able to be positioned between a top end 352 of the stretchable member 347 and the top bracket 349, the top end of the linkage 6 is secured to the top bracket 349 through the pivot joint, and the connection point is between the top end 352 of the stretchable member 347 and a bottom end of the linkage 6, where: the connection point rotates in a clockwise direction as the torque tube 350 rotates in a counterclockwise direction and rotates in a counterclockwise direction as the torque tube 350 rotates in a clockwise direction.
Regarding claim 20, Worden and Boucher teach the counterbalance assembly 346, where: the linkage 6 is able to be positioned between a bottom end 351 of the stretchable member 347 and the bottom bracket, the bottom end of the linkage 6 is secured to the bottom bracket through the pivot joint, and the connection point is between the bottom end 351 of the stretchable member 347 and a top end of the linkage 6, where: the connection point rotates in a clockwise direction as the torque tube 350 rotates in a counterclockwise direction and rotates in a counterclockwise direction as the torque tube 350 rotates in a clockwise direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
855
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Boucher reference is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the Boucher reference and the Worden reference are drawn to counterbalancing assemblies for supporting objects that are capable of being adjusted. Boucher teaches the claimed pin and slot connection, which allows the mechanism to be adjusted within the range of the slot. Therefore, it is submitted that Boucher and Worden are analogous, and the rejections stand as stated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 03/27/2026.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “progressive force-limiting linkage,” as discussed on pg. 14, 3rd paragraph) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 27-Jul-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights