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 .
Summary
This is the response to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 02/23/2026.
Claims 1, 3-16 and 20-21 remain pending in the application with claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10-12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayatsu (JP2013175576 or ‘576 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 1 and 21, Hayatsu ‘576 discloses in fig. 1 a free-standing solar electrical generator comprising:
an outer wall 2 arranged to partially surrounding a cavity, the outer wall extending around the cavity to define at least one gap (annotated fig. 1 below) such that light can enter the cavity through a top of the cavity and through the at least one gap (fig. 6), wherein the outer wall supports the generator while free-standing and the outer wall contacts a ground when the generator is free-standing on the ground (figs. 6-8),
wherein an inner face of the outer wall and an outer face of the outer wall are provided with solar cells 1 (paragraph [0028] of the translation document); and
a hub 2b elevationally within the cavity (fig. 2) with an upper face provided with solar cells 1 (fig. 2) radially spaced from the outer wall within the cavity (fig. 2 shows the solar cells of the hub 2b that are positioned at the portion of the hub that is not directly connected to the outer wall as the claimed solar cells radially spaced from the outer wall; for example, the solar cells 1 of the portion shown in the insert in fig. 2 as the claimed solar cells radially spaced from the outer wall within the cavity; alternatively, annotated figs. 3b-3c below shows the structures of Hayatsu that correspond to the claimed hub elevationally within the cavity with the upper face provided with solar cells radially spaced from the outer wall within the cavity) to receive light which has entered the cavity through the top of the cavity and through the at least one gap (figs. 6-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
246
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 3, Hayatsu ‘576 discloses the hub 2b and inner face of the outer wall of Hayatsu include protective glass layer 6 [0030] that is reflective because the layer 6 is visible; therefore, the protective layer 6 corresponds to the claimed reflector of the hub and inner surface of the outer wall.
Addressing claim 6, annotated figs. 3b-3c below show the structural equivalence to the claimed spoke.
PNG
media_image2.png
266
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Addressing claims 7-8, Hayatsu ‘576 discloses the outer wall completely surround the hub, which corresponds to subtend an angle of greater than 280 at the centre of the hub as claimed.
Addressing claim 9, annotated fig. 1 of Hayatsu ‘576 below discloses the outer wall includes 2 subsections, each subtends an angle of less than 320o at the centre of the hub as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
234
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 10, Hayatsu ‘576 discloses in annotated fig. 1 below the structural equivalences of the claimed first panel and the second panel, each having a concave inner face and a convex outer face, the panels being horizontally spaced so that the concave faces face one another thereby defining the central cavity.
PNG
media_image4.png
380
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Addressing claims 11-12, annotated fig. 3b below shows the maximum width of the hub is less than one third of the maximum width of the cavity as claimed.
PNG
media_image5.png
144
208
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9-12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayatsu (JP2013191633 or ‘633 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 1 and 21, Hayatsu ‘633 discloses a free standing solar electrical generator (figs. 1-3) comprising:
an outer wall 2B arranged to partially surround a cavity (figs. 2-3), the outer wall extending around the cavity to define at least one gap (annotated fig. 1 below) such that light can enter the cavity through the top of the cavity and through the at least one gap (fig. 6), wherein the outer wall supports the generator while free-standing (figs. 1-3, the outer wall is part of the generator; therefore, it is configured to support itself as well as the generator while free-standing on the ground as claimed),
wherein an inner face of the outer wall and an outer face of the outer wall are provided with solar cells ([0008-0012] and figs. 1-3); and
a hub 3 elevationally within the cavity with an upper face provided with solar cells (figs. 1-3) radially spaced from the outer wall within the cavity to receive light which as entered the cavity through the top of the cavity and through the at least one gap (fig. 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
254
288
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 3, fig. 3 shows the at least one hub 3 and inner face of the outer wall 2A are provided with glass layer 6 that corresponds to the claimed reflector.
Addressing claim 6, figs. 1-2 show the section 2A as the structural equivalence to the claimed spoke connecting the outer wall to the hub.
Addressing claim 9, figs. 1-2 show the outer wall 2B subtends an angle of less than 320o at the centre of the hub.
Addressing claim 10, annotated fig. 2 below shows the claimed first and second panels, each having a concave inner face and a convex outer face, the panels being horizontally spaced so that the concave faces face one another thereby defining the central cavity as claimed.
PNG
media_image7.png
234
350
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Addressing claims 11-12, annotated fig. 2 below shows the maximum width of the hub is less than half and less than one third of the maximum width of the cavity.
PNG
media_image8.png
296
358
media_image8.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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayatsu (JP2013175576 or ‘576 with provided machine English translation) in view of Spartz (US 2007/0240758).
Addressing claim 4, Hayatsu ‘576 is silent regarding the limitation of current claim.
Spartz discloses an outer wall (the wall of the tubular body 12) arranged to partially surrounding a cavity (the interior of the tubular body in fig. 1). Spartz further discloses the inside wall 22 of the body 12 is provided with thin film photovoltaic panel 20 [0021], which corresponds to the claimed flexible solar fabric [0028].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the solar electrical generator of Hayatsu ‘576 with the known flexible solar fabric of Spartz in order to obtain the predictable result of positioning solar panels on curved surfaces for generating electrical powers (Spartz, [0021, 0028]; Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayatsu (JP2013175576 or ‘576 with provided machine English translation) in view of Suzuki (US 2005/0084373).
Addressing claim 5, Hayatsu ‘576 is silent regarding a power storage device within the hub.
Suzuki discloses a solar electrical generator comprising a battery 17 within the hub (fig. 3 and paragraph [0078]).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the electrical generator of Hayatsu with the battery within the hub as disclosed by Suzuki in order to store the energy generated by the solar cells.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayatsu (JP2013191633 or ‘633 with provided machine English translation) in view of Spartz (US 2007/0240758).
Addressing claim 4, Hayatsu ‘633 is silent regarding the limitation of current claim.
Spartz discloses an outer wall (the wall of the tubular body 12) arranged to partially surrounding a cavity (the interior of the tubular body in fig. 1). Spartz further discloses the inside wall 22 of the body 12 is provided with thin film photovoltaic panel 20 [0021], which corresponds to the claimed flexible solar fabric [0028].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the solar electrical generator of Hayatsu ‘633 with the known flexible solar fabric of Spartz in order to obtain the predictable result of positioning solar panels on curved surfaces for generating electrical powers (Spartz, [0021, 0028]; Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayatsu (JP2013191633 or ‘633 with provided machine English translation) in view of Suzuki (US 2005/0084373).
Addressing claim 5, Hayatsu ‘633 is silent regarding a power storage device within the hub.
Suzuki discloses a solar electrical generator comprising a battery 17 within the hub (fig. 3 and paragraph [0078]).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the electrical generator of Hayatsu with the battery within the hub as disclosed by Suzuki in order to store the energy generated by the solar cells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-12 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 04/08/2026
Prosecution Insights