DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Claims 1 and 19 are amended.
Claims 2 and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1, 3-19, and 21 are pending.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CORIO (US 20200403561 A1) in view of The Spring Store (Spring Dimensioning and Tolerancing).
Regarding claim 1, CORIO teaches a counterbalance assembly in a photovoltaic (PV) tracking system (see the counter-balance assembly 10 in the solar tracker assembly 12; see Figs. 1-4), the counterbalance assembly comprising:
a top bracket (see the top bracket 62) including a first connection point (see the first connection point in Fig. 4 attached below), the top bracket configured to be secured to a torque tube (see the torque tube 34) (see Fig. 4) such that the top bracket rotates with the torque tube about an axis of rotation (see the axis of rotation in Fig. 4 attached below) (The top bracket 62 rotates with the torque tube 34 about the axis of rotation; see Fig. 4);
a bottom bracket (see the bottom bracket 64) including a second connection point (see the second connection point in Fig. 4 attached below), the bottom bracket configured to be secured to a column supporting the torque tube (The bottom bracket 64 is secured to the support column 32 supporting the torque tube 34) (see Fig. 4); and
a stretchable member (see the spring 70 & spring holders 72, which are stretchable) having a top end (see the top end of the spring 70 & spring holders) connected to the top bracket at the first connection point (see Fig. 4 attached below), a bottom end (see the top end of the spring 70 & spring holders 72) connected to the bottom bracket at the second connection point (see Fig. 4 attached below), and an unstretched length that is shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points at zero degrees of torque tube rotation such that the stretchable member is required to be stretched in order to be connected to the first and second connection points (The Spring Store discloses “Length inside hooks is the longitude of an extension spring which includes the body length and hook gaps. Extension springs are usually pre-loaded when installed so that they stay in place so the length inside hooks cannot be longer than the space between the handles or posts where it will be connected” and the figure shows that the unloaded length for a spring is shorter than the loaded length for the spring (see Page 4). 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 unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 so as to be shorter than the distance between the first and second connection points at zero degrees of torque tube rotation in order that the spring 70 & spring holders 72 in the device of CORIO as taught by The Spring Store, because the shorter unstreched length for the spring can stay in place when installed with the longer stretched length for the spring. Therefore, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 with the unstretched length is required to be stretched in order to be connected to the first and second connection points).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CORIO teaches the unstretched length is between about 100 millimeters and about 800 millimeters shorter than the distance between the first and second connection points (One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is less shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 cannot be securely or properly installed into the first and second connection points, but when the unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is too shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is difficult to be installed into the first and second connection points. As the secure and proper installation is a variable that can be modified by adjusting the unstretched length, the precise unstretched length would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed unstretched length cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the unstretched length in the apparatus of CORIO to obtain the desired secure and proper installation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CORIO teaches the unstretched length is between about 100 millimeters and about 600 millimeters shorter than the distance between the first and second connection points (One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is less shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 cannot be securely or properly installed into the first and second connection points, but when the unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is too shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is difficult to be installed into the first and second connection points. As the secure and proper installation is a variable that can be modified by adjusting the unstretched length, the precise unstretched length would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed unstretched length cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the unstretched length in the apparatus of CORIO to obtain the desired secure and proper installation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CORIO teaches the unstretched length is between about 200 millimeters and about 500 millimeters shorter than the distance between the first and second connection points(One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is less shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 cannot be securely or properly installed into the first and second connection points, but when the unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is too shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is difficult to be installed into the first and second connection points. As the secure and proper installation is a variable that can be modified by adjusting the unstretched length, the precise unstretched length would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed unstretched length cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the unstretched length in the apparatus of CORIO to obtain the desired secure and proper installation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CORIO teaches the stretchable member is a spring (see the spring) (see Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
CORIO teaches the spring is a compression spring (The spring is a compression spring) (see Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the recitation “wherein the stretchable member is pre-stretched to the distance between the first and second connection points before the top end of the stretchable member is connected to the top bracket at the first connection point and before the bottom end is connected to the bottom bracket at the second connection point”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 11.
CORIO teaches the stretchable member is held by a pin ([0075] the top frame may include a pin to attach it to a top portion of the support column and/or the bottom frame may have one or more additional lower brackets 74 that fit around the support column and attaches it thereto at a location at or near the bottom of the support column). Regarding the recitation “in a pre-stretched position”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 12.
CORIO teaches the pin is removable (The pin is removable).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
CORIO teaches the spring includes a first drawbar (see the upper spring holder 72) at least partially disposed within a coiled portion of the spring (see the coiled portion of the spring 70) (see Figs. 2-4), and the first drawbar is coupled to the top bracket at the first connection point (see Fig. 4 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 14.
CORIO teaches a first portion of the first drawbar is wider than the coiled portion of the spring (The bottom portion of the upper spring holder 72 is wider than the coiled portion of the spring 70) (see Figs. 2-4), the first portion being positioned outside of the coiled portion of the spring toward the top bracket (The bottom portion of the upper spring holder 72 is positioned outside of the coiled portion of the spring 70 toward the top bracket 62) (see Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 14.
CORIO teaches the spring includes a second drawbar (see the lower spring holder 72) at least partially disposed within a coiled portion of the spring (see the coiled portion of the spring 70) (see Figs. 2-4) and the second drawbar is coupled to the bottom bracket at the second connection point (see Fig. 4 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 16.
CORIO teaches at least one of the first drawbar or the second drawbar includes one or more hooks (see the top hook portion of the upper spring holder 72 and the bottom hook portion of the lower spring holder 72) (see Figs. 2-4), each hook contacting an end of the coiled portion of the spring (Each hook portion contacts an end of the coiled portion of the spring 70) (see Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 18, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 17.
CORIO teaches the first drawbar includes a first hook that contacts a first end of the coiled portion and the second drawbar includes a second hook that contacts a second end of the coiled portion (The top hook portion of the upper spring holder 72 contacts the top end of the coiled portion of the spring 70 and the bottom hook portion of the lower spring holder 72 contacts the bottom end of the coiled portion of the spring 70) (see Figs. 2-4), the second end being opposite the first end (see Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 21, CORIO teaches a counterbalance assembly in a photovoltaic (PV) tracking system (see the counter-balance assembly 10 in the solar tracker assembly 12; see Figs. 1-4), the counterbalance assembly comprising:
a top bracket (see the top bracket 62) including a first connection point (see the first connection point in Fig. 4 attached below), the top bracket configured to be secured to a torque tube (see the torque tube 34) (see Fig. 4) such that the top bracket rotates with the torque tube about an axis of rotation (see the axis of rotation in Fig. 4 attached below) (The top bracket 62 rotates with the torque tube 34 about the axis of rotation; see Fig. 4);
a bottom bracket (see the bottom bracket 64) including a second connection point (see the second connection point in Fig. 4 attached below), the bottom bracket configured to be secured to a column supporting the torque tube (The bottom bracket 64 is secured to the support column 32 supporting the torque tube 34) (see Fig. 4); and
a stretchable member (see the spring 70 & spring holders 72, which are stretchable) having a top end (see the top end of the spring 70 & spring holders) connected to the top bracket at the first connection point (see Fig. 4 attached below), a bottom end (see the top end of the spring 70 & spring holders 72) connected to the bottom bracket at the second connection point (see Fig. 4 attached below), and an unstretched length that is between about 50 millimeters and about 1000 millimeters shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points at zero degrees of torque tube rotation such that the stretchable member is required to be stretched in order to be connected to the first and second connection points (The Spring Store discloses “Length inside hooks is the longitude of an extension spring which includes the body length and hook gaps. Extension springs are usually pre-loaded when installed so that they stay in place so the length inside hooks cannot be longer than the space between the handles or posts where it will be connected” and the figure shows that the unloaded length for a spring is shorter than the loaded length for the spring (see Page 4). 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 unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 so as to be shorter than the distance between the first and second connection points at zero degrees of torque tube rotation in order that the spring 70 & spring holders 72 in the device of CORIO as taught by The Spring Store, because the shorter unstreched length for the spring can stay in place when installed with the longer stretched length for the spring. Therefore, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 with the unstretched length is required to be stretched in order to be connected to the first and second connection points. Regarding the claimed “between about 50 millimeters and about 1000 millimeters”, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is less shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 cannot be securely or properly installed into the first and second connection points, but when the unstretched length of the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is too shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points, the spring 70 & spring holders 72 is difficult to be installed into the first and second connection points. As the secure and proper installation is a variable that can be modified by adjusting the unstretched length, the precise unstretched length would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed unstretched length cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the unstretched length in the apparatus of CORIO to obtain the desired secure and proper installation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223)).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/24/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that the prior art does not teach or suggest the new limitation “an unstretched length that is shorter than a distance between the first and second connection points at zero degrees of torque tube rotation such that the stretchable member is required to be stretched in order to be connected to the first and second connection points” is not persuasive.
The Spring Store discloses the unloaded length for a spring is shorter than the loaded length for the spring because the shorter unloaded length for the spring can stay in place when installed with the longer loaded length for the spring. Therefore, CORIO in view of the Spring Store teaches all limitations including the new limitation required by the amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified and/or 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
