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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/20/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claims 1 and 15 recite “wherein opposing end surfaces of the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels are separated by the support beam and droop with respect to a supported surface of each of the plurality of stationary solar reflectors panels” in lines 12-14 of claim 1, “where opposing end surfaces of the plurality stationary solar reflector panels are separated by the support beam and droop with respect to a supported surface of each of the plurality of stationary solar reflectors panels” in lines 12-15 of claim 15. Applicant does not have support for the limitation in the originally filed disclosure. Applicant points figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0037] of the US publication 2024/0171122 which describes “the reflector panels 70 are located off the ground and are supported by the planar support as shown in figs. 1-2, which lead to a slight droop of the ends of the reflector panels allowing rain water to remove dirt, dust and debris. However, figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0037] do not show nor describe OPPOSING END SURFACES of the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels are separated by the support beam and droop with respect to a supported surface of each of the plurality of stationary solar reflectors. Applicant annotated the opposing end surfaces of the plurality of stationary solar reflector panel to be the longitudinal edges of each reflector 70 as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1-2 clearly show such edges are connected to each other, and not separated by the support beam 72.
Fig. 2 clearly shows such longitudinal edges of each reflector 70 are not separated by anything, and not separated by the support beam 72. Fig. 2 also shows there is no droop at the longitudinal edges of the reflector 70 (see annotated fig. 2 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
835
971
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0037] describes “reflectors panels 70 are located off the ground and are supported by the planar support as shown in FIGS. 1-2, which leads to a slight droop of the ends of the reflector panels allowing rain water to remove dirt, dust and debris”. That is, Applicant discloses by locating the reflector off the ground, the slight droop of the ends of the reflectors allowing rain water to remove dirt, dust and debris, or the slight droop of the ends of the reflectors are an inherent feature of the reflectors and this inherent feature allows the rain water to wash off the dirt, dust and debris. Paragraph [0037] does not describe opposing ends that is separated by a support beam, and more specifically opposing ends as argued and annotated by Applicant.
As shown in fig. 5, the ends of the reflectors have a slight droop resulting from the protrusion (see annotated figs. 2 and 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
804
980
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
297
1007
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 and 16-21 are rejected on the same ground as claims 1 and 15.
For the purpose of this office action, the limitation is construed as the reflectors are separated by the stationary structural members (or the posts) as shown and disclosed by Applicant as explained above.
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 1-11 and 13-21 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.
As amended, claim 1 recites “a plurality of stationary solar reflector panels, positioned above, attached to and supported by the support beam and configured to reflect light onto the back side of the bifacial solar panels, wherein the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels includes a plurality of projections, where opposing end surfaces of the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels are separated by the support beam and droop with respect to a supported surface of each of the plurality stationary solar reflector panels” in lines 9-15 of claim 1 and lines 10-15 of claim 15. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined, because if the reflectors arranged above the support beam, the opposing end surfaces of the reflectors cannot be separated by the same support beam, and vice versa.
Claims 2-11 and 13-14 and 16-21 are rejected on the same ground as claims 1 and 15.
For the purpose of this office action, the limitation is construed as the reflectors are separated by the stationary structural members (or the posts) as shown and disclosed by Applicant as explained 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) 1-4, 9-11, 13, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN206004586, see machine translation) in view of Pilat et al. (US 2019/0341881) and Black (US Patent 4,148,295), and further in view of Kim (KR102165092, Cite No. 1 of Foreign Patent Documents in IDS 7/24/2023).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Tang et al. discloses an assembly (or photovoltaic system 100) comprising:
a plurality of stationary structural members (110 and 150, fig. 1) each having a length that extends longitudinally to a distal member end (see fig. 1);
a rotatable shaft or shaft (see cross beam 141, fig. 1, [0048-0049]) having a rotatable axis (e.g. along the shaft/beam 141), where the rotatable shaft (141) is rotatably connected to the plurality of stationary structural members (110/150, fig. 1, also see figs. 2-5) at the distal member end;
a bifacial photovoltaic panel (120, figs. 1-5) that includes a front side and an opposing back side (see figs. 1-5);
a support (see linkages/frame 143, fig. 1) attached to the plurality of stationary structural members (110/150) and extending parallel with the rotatable axis (or extending between columns 110) and positioned above and separated from a ground surface (see figs. 1-5); and
a solar reflector panel (130, see figs. 1-5) connected to or being supported by the support (1433, see fig. 1) and configured to reflect light onto the back side of the bifacial solar panels (see figs. 2-5).
Tang et al. shows a support (143) extending between two stationary structural members (or columns 110) and having horizontal linkages (1433, see fig. 1). Tang et al. does not explicitly show a support beam.
Pilat et al. shows a support in a frame having a support beam attached to the horizontal linkages attached to the stationary structural members (18) and extending parallel with the rotatable axis and positioned and separated from a ground surface.(see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
756
782
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Tang et al. by incorporating a support beam attached to the horizontal linkages so as the support beam extends parallel with the rotatable axis and positioned above and separated from a ground surface as taught by Pilat et al. to ensure the solar reflector (130) being firmly supported underneath, because Pilat et al. teaches it is necessity of providing frames that are sufficiently raised to make it possible to install the reflectors at the bottom of the solar panels (see [0005]).
Tang et al. discloses “reflective panels” (see [0013]), or uses plurality of indication for the reflector panel (130), and Pilat et al. teaches using more than two stationary structural members under one solar panel (see fig. 2 of Pilat et al.). The assembly of Tang et al. includes solar tracking component (or photovoltaic component) and reflective component (or the solar reflector). Modified Tang et al. does not explicitly show using a plurality of solar reflectors panels in fig. 1 and more than two stationary structural members such that opposing end surfaces of the reflectors panels separated by the plurality of stationary structural members; nor do they teach the solar reflectors being stationary.
Black discloses an assembly comprising a solar tracking component (or deflector 12 of vanes 24; see fig. 1; col. 3, lines 34-40), and a reflector assembly (14, fig. 1); wherein the reflector assembly (14) includes a plurality of reflector plates (see the sentence bridging cols. 2 and 3) and using more than two stationary structural members (see upright posts 20 and 22); and shows the opposing end surfaces of the reflector plate is separated by a stationary structural member (upright post/support 22, see fig. 1). Black also teaches the reflector assembly or reflector(s) being stationary and remaining relative immobile to reduce the cost of the reflector while still allowing the reflector to be adjusted for fine focusing (see col. 2, lines 21-25) and reduce strain on the tracking motors (see col. 1, lines 2-39).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of modified Tang et al. by using a plurality of solar reflector panels (or reflector plates) and more than two stationary structural members (or upright post/support 110) such that the opposing end surface of the reflectors are separated by a stationary structural member (or the upright post) as taught by Black, because Tang et al. explicitly indicates a plurality of solar reflector panels in the description and Black teaches such utilization is a mere configuration of forming a reflector assembly. Such modification would involve nothing more than a mere duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of modified Tang et al. by having the reflector panels (130) being stationary and remain relative immobile, e.g. by attaching the linkage/frame 143 supporting the reflector 130 to the stationary structure such as 150 or 110, as taught by Black, because Black teaches having the reflectors being stationary and remaining relative immobile to reduce the cost of the reflector while still allowing the reflector to be adjusted for fine focusing and reduce strain on the tracking motors.
Tang et al. describes the reflector (130) to be PE diffuse reflection having multiple convex parts ([0043]).
Tang et al. does not explicitly disclose the plurality of solar reflector panels includes a plurality of projections where opposing end surfaces of the plurality of the reflector panels droop with respect to a supported surface of each of the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels to allow rain water to run off the opposing end surfaces to remove dirt from the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels.
Kim et al. discloses reflector panels including a plurality of projections (or convex parts, see figs. 4 and 6-7) where the opposing surfaces of the plurality panels droop with respect to a support surface (or the concave parts, see figs. 4 and 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of modified Tang et al. by using solar reflector panels each including a plurality of projections such that the opposing surfaces of the plurality panels droop with respect to a support surface as taught by Kim et al., because Tang et al. explicitly suggests using reflectors with convex parts and Kim et al. teaches reflector panels including a plurality of projection would improve the power generation efficiency with a better economic effect of reducing the initial investment cost and maintenance cost and better effect of reducing the installation area of a solar power plant, solving the problem of insufficient site and further protecting the natural environment (see [0026-0027] of the translation). In such modification, the reflectors of modified Tang et al. will display the property/characteristics of allow rain water to run off the opposing end surfaces to remove dirt from the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, modified Tang et al. discloses an assembly as in claims 1 and 15 above, wherein Kim et al. discloses the plurality of projections include first and second sloped sidewalls separated at a distal end by a projection top surface (see figs. 4 and 6-7).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, modified Tang et al. discloses an assembly as in claims 2 and 16 above, wherein Kim et al. discloses the projection top surface is planar (see figs. 4 and 7).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, modified Tang et al. discloses an assembly as in claims 3 and 17 above, wherein Kim et al. discloses the first and second sidewalls are chamfered (see figs. 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tang et al. discloses assembly as in claim 2 above, wherein Kim et al. discloses the projections extend substantially in an east west orientation (see figs. 4 and 6-7), which is perpendicular to the rotatable axis disclosed in Tang et al..
Regarding claim 10, modified Tang et al. discloses an assembly as in claim 1 above, wherein Kim et al. discloses the projections comprise truncated cones (see figs. 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tang et al. discloses an assembly as in claim 1 above, wherein Kim et al. discloses the projections comprise truncated trapezoids (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tang et al. discloses assembly of claim 1, wherein Tang et al. discloses a drive mechanism (see rotary reducer 142) secured to the rotatable shaft connected to rotate the rotatable shaft about the rotational axis ([0048-0049]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Tang et al. discloses an assembly as in claim 13 above, wherein Tang et al. discloses the drive mechanism comprises a drive arm (shaft 150), Pilat et al. also teaches including a drive arm (see arm 28 in figs. 1-8 of Pilat)
Claim(s) 5-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tang et al. (CN206004586, see machine translation) as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Fujino et al. (US 2017/0229594).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 19-20, modified Tang et al. discloses an assembly as in claims 2 and 16 above, wherein Tang et al. describes the reflector (130) to be PE diffuse reflection ([0043]).
Modified Tang et al. does not explicitly disclose the solar reflector panels are plastic as recited in claims 5 and 19, or thermoplastic as recited in claim 6, or high density polyethylene (HDPE) as recited in claims 7 and 20.
Fujino et al. discloses high-density polyethylene among others is preferable to be used for forming a light diffusion layer since they have excellent moldability and desired diffusion and reflection performance is easily obtained ([0035]). Fujino et al. also teaches high-density polyethylene has excellent weather resistance and excellent moisture heat resistance ([0036]). High density polyethylene is a plastic and a thermoplastic.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of modified Tang et al. by using high density polyethylene (HDPE) as taught by Fujino et al. for the solar reflector panels; because Tang et al. explicitly suggests using PE (or polyethylene) diffuse reflection, and Fujino et al. discloses high density polyethylene is preferable for forming light diffusion layer since it has excellent moldability so that desired diffusion and reflection performance is easily obtained as well as excellent weather resistance and excellent moisture heat resistance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tang et al. (CN206004586, see machine translation) as applied to claim, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 107196595, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tang et al. discloses an assembly as in claim 2 above, wherein Tang et al. teaches the solar reflector panels comprise diffuse reflection ([0043]).
Tang et al. does not explicitly disclose the solar reflector panels comprise one of painted or powder coated steel.
Zhang et al. discloses solar reflector panels comprises diffuse reflection including a reflective unit molded from steel plate coated with powder or reflective paint ([0016-0019] and [0071]). In other words, Zhang et al. disclosed the solar reflector panels comprise one of painted or powder coated steel.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the solar reflector panels comprising painted or powder coated steel as taught by Zhang et al.; because Tang et al. explicitly suggests using diffuse reflection, and Zhang et al. teaches such reflectors would reflect light to the back side of the bifacial photovoltaic module once or multiple times (see [0012]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tang et al. (CN206004586, see machine translation) as applied to claim, and further in view of Melton et al. (US Patent 7,531,741).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tang et al. discloses an assembly as in claim 13 above, wherein Tang et al. discloses the rotatable shaft (141) is rotatably connected to the plurality of stationary structural members (110/150) at the distal member end by a rotary reducer (142, see fig. 1) for rotating the shaft (141, [0048-0049]).
Tang et al. does not explicitly disclose the rotatable shaft connected to the stationary structural members at the distal member end by one or more bearings.
Melton et al. discloses a rotatable shaft (or support tube 56, figs. 2, 6-8) connected to stationary structural members at the distal member end (piers 30 and support pillars 28, see fig. 1) at the distal member end by a bearing (or rotor bearing assembly 34, see figs. 1, 5-6, 7a and 10) together with drive assembly (32, figs. 1, 5-6, 7b and 9) to rotate/move the photovoltaic panel (24, see fig. 24) so that they can track the movement of the sun (see col. 1, lines 60-64 and col. 3, lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of modified Tang et al. by using a drive mechanism including one or more bearings (or rotor bearing assembly 34) together with a drive assembly (32) such that the rotatable shaft connected to stationary structural members at the distal member end by the one or more bearings as taught by Melton et al., because Melton teaches such drive mechanism is preferred to move the photovoltaic panel (or solar power array) so that the photovoltaic panel (or solar power array) can track the movement of the sun (see col. 1, lines 60-64 and col. 3, lines 4-8). Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known drive mechanism for its intended use of rotate/move the photovoltaic panel in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112(a) rejection:
Applicant argues that Applicant has support for the limitation of “wherein opposing end surfaces of the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels are separated by the support beam and droop with respect to a supported surface of each of the plurality of stationary solar reflectors panels” in figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0037] of the US publication 2024/0171122.
However, figs. 1-2 and paragraph [0037] do not provide support for the claimed limitation as explained above.
Prior art rejection:
Applicant argues none of Pilat, Tang, and Kim discloses or suggests an arrangement that allows rain water to run off the opposing end surfaces to remove dirt from the plurality stationary solar reflector panels.
Applicant then argues rain water will only run off the reflector 14 at the end adjacent to the collector support 22, and not up hill and off reflector at its end adjacent to the vertical deflector 12 (or solar collector). Applicant then concludes the claim is not being consider none of the prior art disclose the limitation “a plurality of stationary solar reflector panels, where opposing end surfaces of the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels are separated by the support beam and droop with respect to a supported surface of each of the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels to allow rain water to run off the opposing end surfaces to remove dirt from the plurality of stationary solar reflector panels” as claimed. The examiner replies that Applicant also does not disclose such limitation in the originally filed disclosure, and the limitation is construed as the opposing end surfaces are separated by a stationary structural member as disclosed by Applicant.
Black discloses a plurality of stationary solar reflector panels (14) positioned above and attached to and supported by the support structure (18), wherein the opposing end surfaces of the reflectors (14) are separated by the stationary structural member (22) and droop with respect to a supported surface of the reflector (e.g. top/bottom surface of reflector 14, see annotated fig. 1 of Black below).
PNG
media_image6.png
429
884
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues if the reflector was placed on the support beam as annotated Fig. 2 of Pilat, it would be in a plane parallel with the plane of the underside of the of the bifacial PV panel, and the reflector would not work for its intended purpose of reflecting sunlight onto the underside of the PV panel. The examiner replies that Tang discloses placing the reflector above a supporting frame including linkage (1433) and teaches the reflector works as intended, e.g. reflecting sunlight onto the underside of the bifacial PV panel. Applicant has not provided any factually supported evidence that if a reflector is placed above a supporting beam of a frame structure to connect linkages (1433) would not function as intended. Applicant’s arguments appear to be arguments of counsel. It is well settled that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726