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 Amendment
This is a non-final office action.
The amendment filed 8/21/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Some of the previous art rejections of claim 1 and its dependents over Abbaraju are maintained. Others are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
The previous art rejections over claims 20-25 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
New analysis follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0035847 to Abbaraju (of record).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10, Abbaraju teaches a method of operating a solar energy system, the solar energy system comprising a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules 112 (Figs. 1-3, ¶0016, 0024) and one or more drive systems 114/115 configured to pivot the plurality of PV modules through respective ranges of orientations, the method comprising
During a first period of time characterized by a predominance of a direct component in real-time solar irradiance incident on the plurality of PV modules 112 (¶0017: “an SPC 114 receives an orientation command from a network control unit (NCU) 122 to orient an incident angle θ between the solar tracker 110, and thus the solar modules 112 the solar tracker 110 supports, and the sun”), periodically reorienting the plurality of PV modules to maximize an instantaneous electrical output from photovoltaic conversion of the incident solar irradiance (¶0017: “The corresponding drive assembly 115 positions the solar tracker 110 to the angle θ. Each of the solar trackers 110 can be oriented independently of the other solar trackers 110.”; ¶0021: “In a simplified example to account for diffuse light conditions parameters of the base performance model are pushed to a SPC 114 associated with a solar tracker 110 to orient the solar tracker 110 to a particular angle for a particular time of day and date. These parameters reflect an orientation for a solar panel module mounted on the solar tracker 110 if no adjustments for cloud cover are needed.”; ¶0032: “Each SPC 114, or NCU 122 which is in communication with a plurality of SPCs 114, stores locally a drive algorithm that specifies the position to which each solar tracker 110 is to be driven throughout the day during cloudless sky operation. This position may be compared to an actual position at which the solar tracker is positioned (e.g., data from a sensor on the solar tracker 110) and the SPC 114 or NCU 122 can provide corrective input to drive the solar tracker to a correct position based on the sun.”)
During a second period of time characterized at least at a beginning thereof by a predominance of a diffuse component of the real-time solar irradiance incident on the plurality of PV modules 112 (¶0021: “To account for diffuse radiation caused for example such as cloud cover a diffuse angle adjustment may also be sent to the particular solar tracker 110.”) and further characterized at least at an end thereof by a predominance of the direct component (see discussion of “backtracking” vs. “regular” tracking algorithm in ¶0022; discussion of cloud movement in ¶0023), reorienting the plurality of PV modules to a plurality of orientations so as to maximize a cumulative electrical output from photovoltaic conversion of the incident solar irradiance over the duration of the second period of time (¶0021: As one example, the parameters for a base performance model indicate that, for global optimization of the performance model, a solar panel module mounted on the solar tracker 110 should be oriented at an incidence angle of 10 degrees. Diffuse angle adjustor data indicate that 10 degrees is not optimal for this the solar module mounted on the solar tracker 110, but instead 70% (a factor of 0.7) of this angle should be used. Thus, the diffuse angle adjustor (gain factor) of 0.7 is pushed to the particular solar panel. When the particular SPC 114 receives both parameters, it orients its associated solar module mounted on the solar tracker 110 to an incidence angle of (0.7)*(10 degrees)=7 degrees. Preferably, the diffuse angle adjustment is performed periodically, such as once every hour, though other periods are able to be used.”; ¶0034: “As will be appreciated, between the zones that are very bright and thus following normal tracking of the sun and very dark zones that may benefit from some change in orientation to increase DFI or to avoid some near object shading. These adjustments to the position of the solar trackers 110 are calculated. At step 708 these values are transmitted to the SPCs 114 or the NCU's 122 to drive the solar trackers 110 to a desired angle of orientation at the time coinciding with the time of the forecast digital image.”).
Wherein at least a first reorienting during the second period of time is effective to pivot the plurality of PV modules away from an on-sun orientation.
Per claim 2, Abbaraju teaches the limitations of claim 1. The at least a first reorienting is towards an orientation having a measured or calculated diffuse irradiance component greater than on-sun orientation (¶0021).
Per claim 4, Abbaraju teaches the limitations of claim 2. The measured or calculated diffuse irradiance component (“DHI” or “DFI” in the text) greater than at the on-sun orientation is a maximum diffuse irradiance component at or proximate to a time of the at least a first reorienting during the second period of time (¶0016, 0021, 0023, 0043).
Per claims 5 and 7, Abbaraju teaches the limitations of claim 1. The at least a first reorienting during the second period of time is towards an orientation having a measured or calculated total irradiance (“DHI” or “DFI” in the text) greater than at the on-sun orientation (¶0016, 0021, 0023, 0043).
The measured or calculated total irradiance greater than the on-sun orientation is a maximum total irradiance at or proximate to a time of the at least first reorienting during the second period of time (¶0016, 0021, 0023, 0035, 0043).
Per claim 10, Abbaraju teaches the limitations of claim 1. The at least one reorienting during the second period of time that is not the first reorientation is towards an on-sun orientation, and is carried out to a predicted increase in the direct component (¶0043: “Similarly, the solar array 100 should be relatively quick to have the solar tracker 110 exit the horizontal position associated with diffuse light conditions and to return to normal tracking as soon as possible owing to the local cloudiness.”; ¶0044: “the timing for returning to normal tracking can be shortened such that the movement can be in near real time as the tracker emerges from the cloud cover or even slightly before where it is determined that the increase in production for being in a normal tracking position immediately upon exiting of a cloudy zone outweighs and intermediate loss of generation by no longer being in a horizontal position which is generally considered optimal for diffuse light conditions.”).
Regarding claim 14, Abbaraju teaches a controller 114 configured to carry out the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2018/0152134 to Arliaud.
Regarding claims 20-24, Arliaud teaches a method of operating a solar energy system, the solar energy system comprising a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules 13 (Fig. 2, ¶0075) and one or more drive systems (¶0080, 0081) configured to pivot the plurality of PV modules through respective ranges of orientations, the method comprising
Periodically reorienting the plurality of PV modules 13 to minimize an angular-dependent loss in power output for respective successive sun angles (¶0003-0006)
Detecting an obscuration of the sun by clouds (Figs. 5, 6, 0007-0014, 0105, 0106, 0128)
In response to the detection, reorienting the plurality of PV modules away from an on-sun orientation (the angle changes ϴc in Fig. 12, ¶0135-0149)
Predicting an interval until a cessation of the obscuration based on an image received from a sky-facing camera 5 (¶0124-0131)
Reorienting the plurality of PV modules back towards an on-sun orientation based on the prediction of the interval (the angle changes to ϴp in Fig. 12).
Per claims 21 and 22, Arliaud teaches the limitations of claim 20. The reorienting the plurality of PV modules 13 away from the on-sun orientation is towards an orientation having a calculated diffuse irradiance component and/or total irradiance component greater than at the on-sun orientations (Fig. 6, ¶0107-0122 describes the calculation of optimal orientation based on a calculated diffuse irradiance).
Per claim 23, Arliaud teaches the limitations of claim 20. The reorienting the plurality of PV modules 13 away from the on-sun orientation and reorienting the plurality of PV modules back toward the on-sun orientation (as illustrated best in Fig. 12) is effective to maximize a cumulative electrical output from photovoltaic conversion of incident solar irradiance over a duration comprising at least the interval (Abstract, previously cited passages).
Per claim 24, Arliaud teaches the limitations of claim 20. The predicting is carried out before reorienting the plurality of PV modules 13 away from the on-sun orientation (see previously cited passages).
Regarding claim 25, Arliaud teaches a controller (illustrated schematically in Fig. 10) configured to carry out the method of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abbaraju as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Arliaud.
Regarding claim 3, Abbaraju teaches the limitations of claim 2. Abbaraju is clear that the measured or calculated diffuse irradiance component greater than at the on-sun orientation is determined using a digital image of the sky, where cloudy and sunny skies are differentiable using the image (¶0027, 0030, 0031). Abbaraju does not explicitly recite that the device used to generate the image is a sky-facing optical camera. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a sky-facing optical camera to form such images, as Arliaud teaches it is one of the options for acquiring them (¶0034-0038).
The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abbaraju as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Arliaud.
Regarding claim 6, modified-Abbaraju teaches the limitations of claim 4. Abbaraju is clear that the orientation having a measured or calculated total irradiance greater than at the on-sun orientation is determined using a digital image of the sky, where cloudy and sunny skies are differentiable using the image (¶0027, 0030, 0031). Abbaraju does not explicitly recite that the device used to generate the image is a sky-facing optical camera. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a sky-facing optical camera to form such images, as Arliaud teaches it is one of the options for acquiring them (¶0034-0038).
The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abbaraju as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Arliaud..
Regarding claim 11, Abbaraju teaches the limitations of claim 10, and that the predicted increase in the direct component is determined using a digital image of the sky, where cloudy and sunny skies are differentiable using the image (Ibid.). Abbaraju does not explicitly recite that the device used to generate the image is a sky-facing optical camera. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a sky-facing optical camera to form such images, as Arliaud teaches it is one of the options for acquiring them (¶0034-0038).
The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abbaraju as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of “Analysis of diffuse irradiance from two parts of sky vault divided by solar meridian using portable spectral sky-scanner” to Komar (of record).
Regarding claim 8, Abbaraju teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches that the PV modules are pivoted by the one or more drive systems 114/115 at a rate to follow the sun across the sky (¶0032), as calculated as frequently as every minute, and the measurement or calculation of the presence and degree of diffuse irradiance, and comparison of whether the diffuse irradiance component is greater than on-sun orientation, occurs on a similar timescale (¶0014, 0021, 0030, 0031, 0033). The reference also teaches that the determination may be determined with an irradiance sensor (¶0014, 0020, 0027). Abbaraju does not disclose an irradiance scanner.
Komar teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a scanner to determine a diffuse irradiance component because it improves the calculations of such components (Abstract). Komar further teaches that the angles of the sky are scanned sequentially (Fig. 4), and that the integration time at a particular angle can be changed to avoid saturation and eliminate noise (top of left column of p. 3, middle of right column of p. 4). Combined with the teachings of Abbaraju, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the angular speed of the irradiance scanner to ensure that sufficiently accurate data is used to calculate the diffuse irradiance component as the PV modules are pivoted to match the movement of the sun.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abbaraju as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Komar.
Regarding claim 9, Abbaraju teaches the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches that the PV modules are pivoted by the one or more drive systems 114/115 at a rate to follow the sun across the sky (¶0032), as calculated as frequently as every minute, and the measurement or calculation of the presence and degree of diffuse irradiance, and comparison of whether the diffuse irradiance component is greater than on-sun orientation, occurs on a similar timescale (¶0014, 0021, 0030, 0031, 0033). The reference also teaches that the determination may be determined with an irradiance sensor (¶0014, 0020, 0027). Abbaraju does not disclose an irradiance scanner.
Komar teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a scanner to determine a diffuse irradiance component because it improves the calculations of such components (Abstract). Komar further teaches that the angles of the sky are scanned sequentially (Fig. 4), and that the integration time at a particular angle can be changed to avoid saturation and eliminate noise (top of left column of p. 3, middle of right column of p. 4). Combined with the teachings of Abbaraju, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the angular speed of the irradiance scanner to ensure that sufficiently accurate data is used to calculate the diffuse irradiance component as the PV modules are pivoted to match the movement of the sun.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the anticipation rejections of claim 1 and its dependents are improper. Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed invention from Abbaraju by explaining that the reference does not literally teach a “first period of time” and a “second period of time”. Indeed Abbaraju teaches that certain calculations, measurements, and actions are performed periodically, at a particular rate (¶0021: “such as once every hour”, ¶0030: “(e.g. every 1 minute, 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, etc.)”), but doesn’t specifically define a first period of time as defined in claim 1 and a second period of time as claimed in claim 1.
The reference instead defines that the solar energy system of that invention can receive direct solar radiation at times (¶0032: “cloudless sky operation”), and diffuse radiation or a combination of diffuse and direct solar radiation, at times (¶0021: “cloud cover”), and that both conditions can occur as a function of time (¶0023). When no clouds are present over the system, the plurality of PV modules that form the system are periodically reoriented to maximize an instantaneous electrical output (¶0003: “the output of a solar tracker that is normally tracking the sun so far exceeds that of a solar tracker in a diffuse light position”; ¶0016: “There are known a variety of performance models that can be used to predicting the output of the solar array 100 and, used to orient each of the solar trackers 110 relative to the sun to optimize the total energy output.”). When diffuse radiation or a combination of diffuse and direct solar radiation is present over the system, the plurality of PV modules that form the system are positioned so as to retain a degree of energy production while accounting for the energy necessary to reorient the panels should the clouds move away from the system (¶0016: “In other words, due to shading at a particular time of day or other relationships between a first solar tracker 110 and an adjacent solar tracker 110, maximizing the global energy output by the entire solar array 100 does not necessarily correspond to maximizing the energy output by the either the first or the second solar tracker 110 at any particular time of the day. Instead, the global energy output might be maximized by coordinating the outputs, such as by orienting the first solar tracker 100 to generate 80% of its maximum and the second solar tracker 110 to generate 40% of its maximum. The performance model determines these coefficient or gains (and thus the orientation angles to the sun) for each of the solar trackers in the array 100.”; ¶0025, 0043). The claimed first period of time characterized by a predominance of a direct component in real-time solar irradiance incident on the plurality of PV modules necessarily occurs during operation of Abbaraju’s system. Further, the claimed second period of time characterized by at least a beginning thereof by a predominance of a diffuse component of the real-time solar irradiance incident on the plurality of PV modules and further characterized at least at an end thereof by a predominance of the direct component also necessarily occurs during operation of Abbaraju’s system. The claimed first and second period of time are not related to one another (for instance, the second period does not necessarily occur immediately one the first period has ended), nor does the method require the correlation and recordation of a particular length of time to the first period of time. Therefore, the first and second period inherently occur during Abbaraju’s method.
Applicant argues that the maximizing step involves seeking out one or more orientations at which the quantity of diffuse radiation on a solar panel would be higher than at a direct orientation. This step is taught by Abbaraju (¶0021: “To account for diffuse radiation caused for example such as cloud cover a diffuse angle adjustment may also be sent to the particular solar tracker 110. As one example, the parameters for a base performance model indicate that, for global optimization of the performance model, a solar panel module mounted on the solar tracker 110 should be oriented at an incidence angle of 10 degrees.”, ¶0043). Additionally, returning to on-sun tracking orientation when clouds move away from the PV panels is taught by the reference (¶0043: “the solar array 100 should be relatively quick to have the solar tracker 110 exit the horizontal position associated with diffuse light conditions and to return to normal tracking as soon as possible owing to the local cloudiness.”).
A skilled artisan would understand that the reference teaches maximizing, involving weighing different alternatives and optimizing for a maximum energy production value. Indeed, Abbaraju clearly states that a cumulative electrical output from photovoltaic conversion of the incident solar irradiance occurs at times when a diffuse component of irradiance is present (¶0016: “maximizing the global energy output by the entire solar array 100 does not necessarily correspond to maximizing the energy output by the either the first or the second solar tracker 110 at any particular time of the day. Instead, the global energy output might be maximized by coordinating the outputs, such as by orienting the first solar tracker 100 to generate 80% of its maximum and the second solar tracker 110 to generate 40% of its maximum.”).
Therefore, as the first and second period necessarily occur during Abbaraju’s method of operation, the instantaneous maximization of electrical output during the first period and cumulative maximization of electrical output also necessarily occur.
Applicant’s argument that Abbaraju focuses on breaking down the solar field into zones is immaterial, as the instant claim does not exclude a zone from reading on “a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules”.
Applicant argues that Abbaraju does not teach that tracker orientations in diffuse radiation conditions are tied to predictions of when direct radiation will return. The cited passage of ¶0043 above explicitly considers such prediction.
Applicant’s argument that maximizing output at a given time is not equivalent to maximizing output for a period of time is found unpersuasive, for the reasons stated above.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 4 that Abbaraju does not contemplate a maximum diffuse irradiance component is not found persuasive. The reference teaches the collection of data about diffuse horizonal irradiance and diffuse fraction irradiance, and the spatial intensity of such irradiance (¶0020, 0027, 0028).
With respect to claims reciting a sky-facing optical camera, the examiner agrees that such an element is not anticipated or rendered obvious by Abbaraju alone. However, such structure is anticipated or rendered obvious by Arliaud, as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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 on (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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726