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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the circular section covers an angular range of 160° to 170° via the edge lines”, the broadly recited limitations merely requires that the circular section covers or extends over the range of angles. Applicant’s arguments highlight Fig. 6b of instant specification and seems to imply that the edge lines form an angle of 160° to 170°. However, such a limitation is not recited in the presently pending claims. Notably the claim language is much broader. Applicant’s arguments page 10 paragraph 3 assert that Zhu teaches an angular range of 180° or greater. Examiner asserts that a circular reflector which covers or extends over 180° covers and extends over angular ranges less than 180°.
Applicant argues that optimizing Zhu’s reflector would not yield predictable results. However, applicant has not provided any extrinsic evidence to support said premise.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Zhu features a “butterfly design” rather than a circular design as claimed, Examiner acknowledges Zhu’s teaching of a reflector with a cusp or butterfly design, however Zhu also expressly teaches a circular cross section embodiment (Fig. 2).
Specification
The amendment filed 05/23/2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the foreign patent application A51109/2019 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase (i.e. 05/23/2022), which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of the associated PCT application, in this case 11/20/2020, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 05/23/2022 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p). Applicant is advised to remove the phrase “The contents of which are herein incorporated in their entirety by reference for all purposes” from the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites “plates … whose width is in the range of the diameter of the absorber pipe”. The phrase “in the range of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Para. 0032 of the Applicant’s as-filed Specification of 05/23/2022 does state, “plates… whose width is preferably in the range of the diameter of the absorber pipe, for example about 70 mm.” To the extent that the plates’ width, being “in the range of the diameter of the absorber pipe” is intended to be construed as “about 70 mm” in light of the specification, it is the Examiner’s position that the claim is still indefinite when looking to the specification for guidance, since “about 70 mm” is relative as well, i.e. does “about 70mm” include 68mm and 71mm? If not, is it only 69.5mm – 70.5mm?
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, 2, 3, 5, 6, 12-14, 22-24, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun CN107421136 in view of Zhu US20170370618.
Regarding claim 1, Sun CN107421136 teaches a parabolic trough collector, comprising
a parabolic, trough-shaped main reflector (Fig. 3, reflector 1),
a holding device (seen in annotated Fig. 3), with a plurality of support arms for holding the main reflector (seen in Fig. 3 a plurality of arms support the reflector),
an absorber pipe (annotated Fig. 3, heat collector tube 4), which extends along the focal line of the main reflector (seen in Fig. 3) and in which a heat transfer medium is heated, and
a base (31, Fig. 1), wherein the holding device is mounted on the base so as to be rotatable about a vertical axis (seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
1070
1362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sun does not expressly disclose
wherein a secondary reflector is provided, which extends substantially parallel to and above or below the absorber pipe and which is formed by an elongated reflective profile,
wherein the secondary reflector has in its cross-section a circular section and two edge lines, wherein the circular section covers an angular range of 160° to 170° via the edge lines and is arranged above and eccentrically to the longitudinal axis of the absorber pipe.
Zhu US20170370618 teaches secondary reflectors for use in parabolic trough solar collectors (¶4)
wherein a secondary reflector extends substantially parallel to and above or below the absorber pipe (Fig. 1, reflector 150, absorber tube 160, ¶28) and which is formed by an elongated reflective profile (Fig. 1),
wherein the secondary reflector has in its cross-section a circular section and two edge lines (Seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), and
wherein the secondary reflector is arranged above and eccentrically to the longitudinal axis of the absorber pipe (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and ¶7 the reflector is positioned above the tube as seen in Fig. 1 at a distance D which may be varied ¶7, ¶9).
Zhu teaches that such secondary reflectors increases power production (¶48).
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 a secondary reflector, as taught by Chu, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving parabolic trough collectors with the known predictable result of improving power production.
The remaining difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts to a change in shape of the prior art secondary reflector.
Zhu teaches various shapes and dimensions of the secondary reflector (Fig. 2 through Fig. 10). Zhu teaches optimizing the shape and dimensions of the secondary reflector’s profile to optimize performance of the device (¶11, ¶70, inter alia).
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 shape and dimensions of the secondary reflector to meet the claimed shape and dimensions, since doing so amounts to a routine optimization taught by Zhu and would provide the predictable result of maximizing reflected radiation (¶11)
Regarding claim 2, the previously combined references teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the holding device comprises at least one, circular support circles extending concentrically around the vertical axis, in which a plurality of rollers, attached to the base engage (Sun, best seen in Fig. 1, body 32 is a ring which engages with roller 33).
Regarding claim 3, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of rollers are arranged on the holding device, in a rectangle, a hexagon and/or an octagon.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts to mere arrangement of parts of the prior art roller.
Sun teaches a plurality of rollers spaced about the apparatus (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, rollers 33). .
At the time of this office action there is insufficient evidence on the record to establish criticality to the claimed arrangement.
Absent further evidence, the claimed arrangement is and obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Regarding claim 5, the previously combined references teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, characterized in that a plate-shaped end reflector extending substantially normal to the longitudinal extent of the main reflector is arranged at one end face of the trough-shaped main reflector and extends from the apex to two end regions of the main reflector (Sun, side mirror 5).
Regarding claim 6, the previously combined references teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the absorber pipe comprises a tubular supply conduit (Sun, inlet pipe 7) and a tubular discharge conduit (outlet pipe 6) for the heat transfer medium, both of them running through an opening of the holding device in the area of the vertical axis or extending in the area above the main reflector (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, page 4 ¶3 of the translation).
Regarding claim 12, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the edge lines extend outwards at an angle of about 10 degrees to the connecting line of the corner points of the circular section.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts to a change in shape of the prior art secondary reflector.
Zhu teaches various shapes and dimensions of the secondary reflector (Fig. 2 through Fig. 10). Zhu teaches optimizing the shape and dimensions of the secondary reflector’s profile to optimize performance of the device (¶11, ¶70, inter alia).
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 shape and dimensions of the secondary reflector to meet the claimed shape and dimensions, since doing so amounts to a routine optimization taught by Zhu and would provide the predictable result of maximizing reflected radiation (¶11)
Regarding claim 13, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the diameter of the circular section (19) is three to five times larger than the diameter of the absorber pipe, and in that the edge lines have a length which corresponds approximately to the diameter of the absorber pipe.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts to a change in shape of the prior art secondary reflector.
Zhu teaches various shapes and dimensions of the secondary reflector (Fig. 2 through Fig. 10). Zhu teaches optimizing the shape and dimensions of the secondary reflector’s profile to optimize performance of the device (¶11, ¶70, inter alia).
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 shape and dimensions of the secondary reflector to meet the claimed shape and dimensions, since doing so amounts to a routine optimization taught by Zhu and would provide the predictable result of maximizing reflected radiation (¶11)
Regarding claim 14, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the absorber pipe has a diameter of about 50 mm to 140 mm.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art amounts to mere change in size of the prior art device.
Zhu teaches that the diameter of the absorber tube may be varied (¶49) and the diameter is a results effective variable which varies the performance of the device (¶83).
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 to have a diameter within the claimed range since doing so amounts to a mere change in size of the prior art device and is a known results effective variable which would predictably vary the surface area for absorbing radiation and performance of the device.
Regarding claim 22, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the main reflector has an aperture of more than 7 m.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art amounts to mere change in size of the prior art device.
Zhu teaches that the collector field width is a results effective variable which varies the performance of the device (¶84).
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 to have an aperture within the claimed range since doing so amounts to a mere change in size of the prior art device and is a known results effective variable which would predictably vary the surface area for collecting radiation and performance of the device.
Regarding claim 23, the previously combined references teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the holding device comprises at least one, similar inner support struts extending centrally substantially parallel to the focal line of the main reflector (1) for holding a maintenance device (Sun, Seen in Fig. 3, the assembly comprises a plurality of struts which could be used to hold the broadly claimed maintenance device).
Regarding claim 24, the previously combined references teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 23, wherein at least one outer support strut is provided for holding the maintenance device (Sun, Seen in Fig. 3, the assembly comprises a plurality of struts which could be used to hold the broadly claimed maintenance device).
Claim(s) 4 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun CN107421136 in view of Zhu US20170370618 in view of Dominguez US4883340
Regarding claim 4, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of photovoltaic elements are arranged on the holding device for generating electrical energy.
Dominguez US4883340 teaches a solar tracking apparatus comprising photovoltaic panels arranged on a holding device for reflector panels (Fig. 1, photovoltaic panel 134) thereby providing power for driving a motor for rotating the device (Fig. 10).
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 photovoltaic elements, as taught by Dominguez, since doing so amounts to a known technique for powering solar tracking devices with the known predictable result of providing power for rotating the device.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun CN107421136 in view of Zhu US20170370618 in view of Adel US20170138637
Regarding claim 15, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the main reflector is flexible in shape and is arranged on a tensioning element, which is suspended between the support arms.
Adel US20170138637 teaches a holder for a parabolic mirror (¶2) comprising a flexible reflector (¶34) and tensioning element (¶33) thereby providing improved optical precision (¶4).
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 flexible reflector and tensioning holder of Adel since doing so would improve the optical precision of the device.
Regarding claim 16, the previously combined references teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 15, wherein the tensioning element is pullable in the direction of the base to form a parabolic shape via a plurality of pulling means mounted at spaced engagement points and extending substantially vertically (Adel, ropes 21, ¶96).
Regarding claim 17, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the main reflector comprises a plurality of flexible main reflector modules aligned along the focal line.
Adel US20170138637 teaches a holder for a parabolic mirror (¶2) comprising a flexible reflector (¶34) comprising a plurality of segments and tensioning element (¶33) thereby providing improved optical precision (¶4).
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 flexible reflector and tensioning holder of Adel since doing so would improve the optical precision of the device.
Regarding claim 18, the previously combined references teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 17, wherein each main reflector module comprises a flexible mirror foil or a plurality of substantially similar mirror plates (Adel, ¶34, a plurality of mirror segments amounts to plates) or polished sheet metal plates,
Notwithstanding the above issues of definiteness, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the plates whose width is in the range of the diameter of the absorber pipe.
The difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art amounts to mere change in size of the prior art device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that varying the width of the mirror plates would vary the amount of surface area and correspondingly vary the amount of light collected.
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 to have a width within the claimed range since doing so amounts to a mere change in size of the prior art device and is a known results effective variable which would predictably vary the surface area for absorbing radiation and performance of the device.
Regarding claim 19, the previously combined references teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 17, wherein the weight distribution of the main reflector modules along the aperture of the main reflector is such that, when freely suspended between the support arms of the holding device, they assume a parabolic shape due to their weight distribution (Adel, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, the device is held in a parabolic shape).
Regarding claim 20, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 19, wherein the width of the main reflector modules is not constant along the aperture, but decreases from the focal line to the support arms.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed subject matter amounts to a mere change in shape of the prior art device. At the time of this office action there is insufficient evidence on the record to establish criticality to the claimed shape.
Absent further evidence, the claimed shape is and obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 25, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun CN107421136 in view of Zhu US20170370618 in view of Lenz US4934324.
Regarding claim 8, the previously combined reference teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the absorber pipe comprises a tubular supply conduit (Sun, inlet pipe 7) and a tubular discharge conduit (outlet pipe 6) for the heat transfer medium.
However, the references do not expressly disclose wherein the supply conduit and the discharge conduit extend at least in sections in the area of the vertical axis and wherein in these sections at least one rotating joint is provided to permit a rotation of the holding device and thus the supply conduit and discharge conduit connected to it about the vertical axis.
Lenz US4934324 teaches a solar tracking device wherein the absorber tube comprises a supply (inlet 61, Fig. 1) and a discharge (outlet 126) wherein the supply conduit and the discharge conduit extend at least in sections in the area of the vertical axis (Fig. 3) and wherein in these sections at least one rotating joint is provided to permit a rotation of the holding device and thus the supply conduit and discharge conduit connected to it about the vertical axis (Fig. 3, swivel joints 26, 29, 60).
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 swivel joints and inlet and outlet configurations, as taught by Lenz, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving similar device with the known predictable result of accommodating the rotating motion of the solar collector.
Regarding claim 9, the previously combined reference teach the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the absorber pipe comprises a tubular supply conduit (Sun, inlet pipe 7) and a tubular discharge conduit (outlet pipe 6) for the heat transfer medium.
However, the references do not expressly disclose, wherein the supply conduit and the discharge conduit are designed as flexible hoses at least in sections to permit a rotation of the holding device and thus the supply conduit and discharge conduit connected to it about the vertical axis (6).
Lenz US4934324 teaches a solar tracking device wherein the absorber tube comprises a supply (inlet 61, Fig. 1) and a discharge (outlet 126) wherein the supply conduit and the discharge conduit extend at least in sections in the area of the vertical axis (Fig. 3) and wherein in these sections at least one rotating joint is provided to permit a rotation of the holding device and thus the supply conduit and discharge conduit connected to it about the vertical axis (Fig. 3, swivel joints 26, 29, 60).
In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the swivel joints of Lenz create a flexible conduit or hose.
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 swivel joints and inlet and outlet configurations, as taught by Lenz, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving similar device with the known predictable result of accommodating the rotating motion of the solar collector.
Regarding claim 25, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein that the absorber pipe comprises a plurality of parts connected by a flanged joint, the flanged joint comprising two respective end flanges and an adapter piece arranged therebetween.
Lenz US4934324 teaches a solar tracking device wherein the absorber tube comprises a supply (inlet 61, Fig. 1) and a discharge (outlet 126) wherein the supply conduit and the discharge conduit extend at least in sections in the area of the vertical axis (Fig. 3) and wherein in these sections at least one rotating joint is provided to permit a rotation of the holding device and thus the supply conduit and discharge conduit connected to it about the vertical axis (Fig. 3, swivel joints 26, 29, 60). Lenz further teaches that the swivel joints are each provide between flanges 65 and 78 seen in Fig. 3
In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the swivel joints of Lenz create a flexible conduit or hose.
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 swivel joints and inlet and outlet configurations, as taught by Lenz, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving similar device with the known predictable result of accommodating the rotating motion of the solar collector.
Claim(s) 29, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun CN107421136 in view of Zhu US20170370618 in view of Giacalone et al. US20110162692
Regarding claim 29, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the parabolic trough collector according to claim 1, wherein the main reflector has a longitudinal axis which is inclined with respect to the surface of the base.
Giacalone et al. US20110162692 teaches a solar concentrator wherein the main reflector is inclined with respect to a base (Fig. 1, reflector 8) so as to point the device at the sun (Fig. 1, 6).
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 such that the main reflector is inclined, as taught by Giacalone, since doing so amounts to a known technique of improving similar devices with the known predictable result of pointing the solar collector at the sun.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 21, 26, 27, 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is insufficient teaching in the prior art to further modify the combined references to achieve the claimed subject matter.
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 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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