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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are 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.
In claim 1, it is unclear what structure determines the direction of sun rays or how those rays are determined to be oriented to the reflective panels as claimed.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hall et al US 2012/0067339.
Regarding claim 1, Hall discloses a solar energy recovery and conversion system provided to equip a greenhouse for cultivation of plants comprising a framework which supports a transparent roof (Hall, ¶0007), the greenhouse comprising a cultivation area located under the roof (Hall, Figure 1), characterized in that the solar energy recovery and conversion system comprises: a set of reflective panels (800) arranged under the roof and above the cultivation area so as to be able to cover all or part of the cultivation area, each reflective panel being pivotably mounted (Hall, abstract) about a longitudinal pivot axis so as to be able to occupy at least one blackout position parallel to the cultivation area, and several inclined positions; a drive device that is provided to cause the reflective panels to pivot around their longitudinal pivot axis (Hall, ¶0008, 0044); at least one solar energy recovery device (202) which is arranged between the roof and the set of reflective panels, so as to recover the solar energy reflected by the reflective panels; a measuring means (photoresistor, Hall ¶0008); and a control unit that is configured to receive an indicator from the measuring means (Hall, ¶0008) and control the drive device based on the indicator according to the following operating modes (Hall, ¶0008): i) a first operating mode wherein at least one group of reflective panels is controlled in an inclined oblique position in a direction substantially parallel to solar rays, the drive device varying the inclination of the reflective panels of the group as a function of a course of the sun, so as to maximize an amount of solar rays reaching the cultivation area, ii) a second operating mode wherein each reflective panel of the group of reflective panels is individually controlled in an inclined concentration position aiming to concentrate the solar rays that are reflected toward the solar energy recovery device; and iii) a third operating mode wherein the reflective panels of the group of reflective panels are all controlled in a blackout position parallel to the cultivation area.
Regarding claim 2, Hall further discloses the solar energy recovery device comprises at least one photovoltaic panel (951) making it possible to convert solar radiation into electrical energy (Hall, ¶0044).
Regarding claim 3, Hall further discloses the solar energy recovery device comprises at least one solar thermal collector making it possible to convert solar radiation into thermal energy via a heat transfer fluid (Hall, ¶0036).
Regarding claim 4, Hall further discloses the solar energy recovery device comprises a storage device which makes it possible to store the electrical energy or the thermal energy produced by the photovoltaic panel or by the solar thermal collector after conversion of the solar radiation (Hall, ¶0040, Figure 13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner maintains that the device of Hall is capable of performing the functional limitations of the claims as claimed. Hall discloses reflective panels comprising an axis of rotation with several configurations of the panels. The reflective panels of Hall are capable of changing orientation to match the orientations as claimed in parts i, ii, and iii of instant claim 1. The limitation of a control unit being “configured to” control the device according to the claimed operating modes is a functional limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The processing element described in ¶0008 of Hall is a control unit capable of performing the functional limitations of the claims. The reflective panels of Hall are pivotally mounted and capable of rotating into the claimed positions in response to the sensor to fulfil the functional and conditional limitations of the claim.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Hall fails to disclose a measuring means or control unit as claimed, the photoresistor of Hall is a sensor used for light detection and fulfills the limitation of “measuring means” at its broadest reasonable interpretation. The control unit of Hall actively receives signals from the photoresistor (Hall, ¶0008) and meets the limitation of “configured to receive at least an indicator from the measuring means”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the control unit configured to receive indicators from three alternate sources) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The control unit is claimed “to receive at least an indicator from the measuring means, the database means or the means for data input”. These are in the alternative. The control unit of Hall does not need to receive an indicator from all three elements to meet the claim limitations. The control unit of Hall receives an indicator from the measuring means, as discussed above.
Applicant repeatedly argues that the system of Hall is merely reactive in that it responds to sensor readings (which are measuring means) but is not adaptive in that Hall fails to disclose the system responding to databases or operator input. However, the claims refer to the system, control unit, and panels responding to measuring means or a database or means for data input. Hall meets the limitation of a measuring means and therefor meets the limitation of the claim.
In response to Hall failing to teach or suggest maximizing an amount of solar rays reaching the cultivation area, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The limitation “so as to maximize an amount of solar rays reaching the cultivation area” is a functional result of applying the product of the invention.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of the claims is maintained. Applicant has not provided a source for solar rays in the claim or a way to determine the direction the solar rays are coming from when they meet the panels of the invention. The direction of solar rays can be influenced by numerous external elements such as obstructions and environment, making it unclear how the applicant can determine which direction the solar rays are originating from and thereby how it can be determined to orient solar panels based on solar rays. Further, it is not unlikely or impossible that solar rays could approach the solar panels of the invention from multiple different angles at once, meaning although the position of a solar panel in relation to a solar ray might be applicable for one solar ray, many other rays are striking the panel from different directions at once. Although the panel might be positioned in relation to one solar ray, multiple solar rays at different angles would mean the panel was not positioned relative to all solar rays.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights