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
The amendment filed 5/20/2026 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 Others are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.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 of claim 20 and its dependents over Arliaud are revised to incorporate new claim limitations.
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, 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, 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 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 of time (best represented as the interval from t10 to t12 in Figs. 11, 12) until a cessation of the obscuration based on an image received from a sky-facing camera 5 (¶0123-0131; particularly ¶0123: “The predictive calculation module 42 calculates the predictive mappings 6 of the solar luminance for future instants (t+nP)”; also ¶0139: “Thanks to the predictive calculation, the displacement of the solar tracker 1 is anticipated, in this case by starting earlier at the instant t10 (prior to t1) until reaching the target value θc at t11 (subsequent to t1)”)
Reorienting the plurality of PV modules back towards an on-sun orientation following expiration of the interval of time predicted (the angle changes to ϴp in Fig. 12 from t12 to t13; ¶0139: “hen by starting by anticipation the return to the instant t11 (prior to t2) until returning to the present inclination angle Op at the instant t13 (subsequent to t2).”).
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 of time predicted (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) 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.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, and 9 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 filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive. Applicant argues that Abbaraju does not teach “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”, instead stating that the reference is concerned with near object shading caused by an adjacent solar tracker. Abbaraju is distinctly concerned with measuring and extracting energy from a diffuse component of real-time solar irradiance (“¶0021: “To account for diffuse radiation caused for example such as cloud cover a diffuse angle adjustment…”). Further, the reference is concerned with comparing and using “global horizontal irradiance (GHI)”, “direct normal irradiance (DNI)”, “global horizontal irradiance (GHI)”, and “diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI)” information to optimize electricity output from a plurality of photovoltaic modules (¶0005; also ¶0014: each solar tracker may have its output managed in accordance with the cloud cover and near shading over the array to increase the overall yield of the array throughout the day”). There is no evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the scope of “global energy output” described in Abbaraju differently from the claimed “cumulative electrical output”.
The Remarks regarding the language of claim 8 that has been integrated into claim 2 are persuasive, and therefore the rejections of claims 2-4, 6, and 9 are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Arliaud predicts the position of an obscuration at fixed times, rather than predicting an interval of time until a cessation of the obscuration. However, the language of the reference makes it clear that such an interval is also being calculated. Per ¶0139: “Thanks to the predictive calculation, the displacement of the solar tracker 1 is anticipated, in this case by starting earlier at the instant t10 (prior to t1) until reaching the target value θc at t11 (subsequent to t1), then by starting by anticipation the return to the instant t11 (prior to t2) until returning to the present inclination angle Op at the instant t13 (subsequent to t2).” (emphasis added). ¶0141-0143 describe the calculation of the change in energy production expected if the drive system moves the PV modules away from the optimal angle for particular time periods; therefore the method necessarily includes a predicted interval of time until cessation of the obscuration. ¶0147, 0148 describe “the predictive passage time… of a cloud in front of the Sun”, which can be interpreted as an interval of time until a cessation of the obscuration. Therefore Arliaud anticipates the newly recited limitations of claim 20.
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 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
Prosecution Insights