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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wagner fails to teach adjacent tubes “disposed between and parallel to the trailing and leading edges”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wagner Fig. 15D expressly teaches tubes disposed between and parallel to trailing and leading edges. These features of Fig. 15D where not relied upon in the previous rejection and constitute new grounds of rejection. The tubes 210 of Fig. 15D are rotated 90 degrees with respect to incoming radiation 110 seen in Fig. 15C.
PNG
media_image1.png
1028
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner US20150330668 in view of Kroizer US20100252025.
Regarding claim 1, Wagner US20150330668 discloses a solar receiver, comprising:
a flat support panel attached to a solar tower (Fig. 2, cavity 230 has a back wall; tower 150); and
a plurality of solar panels attached to and extending from the support panel, the plurality of solar panels comprising a leading edge distant from the flat support panel and an opposing trailing edge proximate the flat support panel (panels 200, Fig. 2);
the plurality of solar panels vertically stacked parallel to the ground (Seen in Fig. 2)
wherein the plurality of solar panels are attached to the flat support panel such that the trailing edges are attached to the flat support panel in parallel (Seen in Fig. 2); and
wherein one or more of the plurality of solar panels is arranged to reflect or radiate solar energy to one or more other solar panel of the plurality of solar panels to trap the reflected or radiated solar energy (seen in Fig. 3, ¶97);
wherein each panel of the plurality of solar panels comprise a plurality of tubes having a cross section and a central axis (channels 210 are tubes);
wherein adjacent tubes of the plurality of tubes are in adjacent physical contact to one another along the central axis (Fig. 6, ¶104 teaches a variation of the panels 200 of Fig. 2 wherein the channels or tube 210 are in adjacent physical contact with each other); and
wherein the plurality of solar panels contains a heat transfer fluid during operation, wherein the heat transfer fluid is introduced at a first temperature at the leading edge of each of the plurality of solar panels and is removed at a second temperature greater than the first temperature at the trailing edge of each of the plurality of solar panels corresponding to each of plurality of solar panels to which the heat transfer fluid was introduced during operation (inlet and outlet seen in Fig. 4, ¶9).
PNG
media_image2.png
695
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
603
899
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
587
677
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
900
978
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The referenced embodiment of Wagner does not expressly disclose
wherein adjacent tubes of the plurality of tubes are in adjacent physical contact to one another along the central axis; and
wherein the adjacent tubes are disposed between and parallel to the trailing and leading edges; and
the central axis of adjacent tubes being offset from the central axis.
Wagner teaches an alternate embodiment wherein adjacent tubes of the plurality of tubes are in adjacent physical contact to one another along the central axis (Fig. 6, ¶104 teaches a variation of the panels 200 of Fig. 2 wherein the channels or tube 210 are in adjacent physical contact with each other).
Wagner ¶104 teaches that the features of Fig. 6 alleviate the need for additional separate pieces and provides the predictable result of receiving, absorbing, and reflecting radiation with the tubes 210.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wagner with tubes in adjacent physical contact to one another along the central axis as taught by Wagner Fig. 6, since doing so is a known technique for improving Wagner’s own devices with the known predictable result of receiving, absorbing, and reflecting radiation with the tubes 210.
Wagner Fig. 15D teaches an alternate embodiment wherein the adjacent tubes are disposed between and parallel to trailing and leading edges. The tubes 210 of Fig. 15D are rotated 90degrees from the tubes 210 of Fig. 15C with respect to incoming radiation 110. Wagner ¶125 teaches that such an arrangement provides for a multiple pass arrangement there by achieving higher fluid temperatures (¶124, ¶125). Wagner Fig. 15D also teaches wherein the heat transfer fluid is introduced at a first temperature at the leading edge of each of the plurality of solar panels and is removed at a second temperature greater than the first temperature at the trailing edge of each of the plurality of solar panels corresponding to each of plurality of solar panels to which the heat transfer fluid was introduced during operation (inlet 500, outlet 530)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with the multipass arrangement of Wagner Fig. 15D since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving similar devices with the known predictable result of higher fluid temperatures.
PNG
media_image1.png
1028
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the central axis of adjacent tubes being offset from the central axis. Wagner does teach “the plurality of heat transfer fluid channels may be positioned to form any desirable planar surface; e.g. non-flat surface, wave-shaped, and/or any other suitable form” ¶104
Kroizer US20100252025A1 teaches wherein the plurality of tubes has a circular cross section (Fig. 1, inter alia) and where in the tubes are offset (Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
Kroizer teaches that varying the offset to reduce the gap between the tube (and corresponding leakage of heat) while still ensuring that each tube is exposed to the heat flux generated by the reflected solar radiation (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the tubes of the prior art such that the tubes are offset since doing so amounts to optimization within prior art conditions taught by Kroizer and would reduce leakage of radiation while ensuring sufficient exposure to heat.
See MPEP 2144.05 IIA
Regarding claim 6, Wagner does not expressly disclose the solar receiver of claim 1, wherein the offset is between greater than 0 and 45 degrees from an adjacent tube.
Kroizer US20100252025A1 teaches wherein the plurality of tubes has a circular cross section (Fig. 1, inter alia) and where in the tubes are offset (Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
Kroizer teaches that varying the offset to reduce the gap between the tube (and corresponding leakage of heat) while still ensuring that each tube is exposed to the heat flux generated by the reflected solar radiation (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the tubes of the prior art such that the tubes are offset within the claimed range, since doing so amounts to optimization within prior art conditions taught by Kroizer and would reduce leakage of radiation while ensuring sufficient exposure to heat.
See MPEP 2144.05 IIA
Regarding claim 7, Wagner further teaches wherein the plurality of tubes have circular cross sections section (Fig. 2).
Wagner does not expressly teach that the tubes are offset by 30 degrees.
Kroizer US20100252025A1 teaches wherein the plurality of tubes has a circular cross section (Fig. 1, inter alia) and where in the tubes are offset (Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
Kroizer teaches that varying the offset to reduce the gap between the tube (and corresponding leakage of heat) while still ensuring that each tube is exposed to the heat flux generated by the reflected solar radiation (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to arrange tubes of the prior art such that the tubes are offset by 30 degrees, since doing so amounts to optimization within prior art conditions taught by Kroizer and would reduce leakage of radiation while ensuring sufficient exposure to heat.
See MPEP 2144.05 IIA
Regarding claim 9, the previously combined references teach the solar receiver of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tubes has a cross-section selected from a group consisting of, circular rectangular, square and diamond (circular, see Wagner Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner US20150330668 in view of Kroizer US20100252025 and in view of Bourgeois US20130327316.
Regarding claim 8, the previously combined references teach the solar receiver of claim 1 wherein the plurality of tubes have a cross section that is offset by greater than 0 degrees (see Kroizer and claim 1 above).
Wagner does not expressly disclose the plurality of tubes has a diamond cross section.
Bourgeois US20130327316 teaches a solar receiver comprising a plurality of tube wherein the water carrying tubes may have a diamond or rhomboid cross section (Fig. 6) with and offset of zero degrees. Bourgeois teaches that such variations in the cross section of the tube are simple substitutions and would function the same (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tubes of the previously combined references to have diamond or rhombus shaped cross sections since doing so amounts to a simple substitution of known tube shapes in the art of solar collectors with known predictable results (see Bourgeois as noted above).
Regarding claim 10, the previously combined references do not expressly teach solar receiver of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tubes have diamond cross- sections.
Bourgeois US20130327316 teaches a solar receiver comprising a plurality of tube wherein the water carrying tubes may have a diamond or rhomboid cross section (Fig. 6) with and offset of zero degrees. Bourgeois teaches that such variations in the cross section of the tube are simple substitutions and would function the same (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tubes of the previously combined references to have diamond or rhombus shaped cross sections since doing so amounts to a simple substitution of known tube shapes in the art of solar collectors with known predictable results (see Bourgeois as noted above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deepak Deean whose telephone number is (571)270-3347. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 517-272-6460. 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.
/DEEPAK A DEEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights