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 6/24/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous art rejections are revised to incorporate new claim limitations.
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 3 and 10 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.
Claim 3 recites “a dripped-water footprint”. Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, also recites “a dripped-water footprint”. Therefore it is unclear if the “dripped-water footprint” recited in claim 3 represents a new or additional limitation, or is a reference to the previously established dripped-water footprint.
Claim 10 recites “a dripped-water footprint at a cleaning orientation”. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, also recites “a dripped-water footprint” and “a cleaning orientation”. Therefore it is unclear if the “dripped-water footprint”/”cleaning orientation” recited in claim 10 represents a new or additional limitation, or is a reference to the previously established dripped-water footprint/cleaning orientation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 6-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR10-2020-0020263 to Park (machine translation relied upon herein), and further in view of US 2005/0091916 to Faris and FR3077463 to Sourd (machine translation relied upon herein; all references were previously made of record).
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14 recite several limitations that begin with “configured to”; the limitations that follow “configured to” are interpreted as intended use limitations. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. These limitations will be treated alongside structural limitations where clarity can be preserved.
Park teaches a solar energy collection system comprising
An array of photovoltaic (PV) modules (not labeled in Fig. 1, exemplary module 120A shown in Figs. 3-4) arranged to be pivoted about a longitudinal axis of the array (the modules in Fig. 1 and the exemplary module 120A of Figs. 3-4 are attached to a cylindrical element that rotates under action of 141; the longitudinal axis of the array runs through the cylindrical element) by a drive system 141 (p. 7 of translation)
A group of plants 500 arranged to produce a crop (bottom of p. 3 of translation)
An irrigation system (not specifically labeled in Fig. 1, exemplary system 131A shown in Figs. 3-4) configured to supply water to the group of plants 500 in accordance with an irrigation plan or program (Fig. 4b; top of p. 4 of translation: “the agricultural parallel photovoltaic power generation system according to an embodiment of the present invention may rotate the nozzle unit of the watering device so that the spraying direction of the liquid of the watering device toward the crop 500 in the second operation mode”, p. 8 of translation), wherein
The irrigation system comprises a fluid conveyance disposed to deliver at least a portion of the water to respective surfaces of the PV module (Fig. 4a)
The PV modules are disposed so that some of the delivered water entrains dust and/or dirt on the on the respective surfaces of the PV modules, and drips therefrom to reach at least a subset of the plants (top p. 8 of translation: “by washing the photovoltaic panel 120A to the liquid below to drop the crop 500 can be made to irrigation of the crop 500 at the same time the washing of the photovoltaic panel 120A”)
a controller 110 configured to control the array of PV modules, wherein the controller is configured to orient the PV modules to a cleaning orientation prior or during delivery of the cleaning water (bottom p. 5 through p. 6 of translation).
While Park doesn’t explicitly recite that at least 50%, or per claim 2, 70% of the delivered water entrains dust and/or dirt on the respective surfaces of the PV modules, 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 maximize the amount of delivered water that reaches the surfaces, as Park clearly teaches configuring the modules and nozzle in a proper orientation and accounting for weather that will render the cleaning less efficient (bottom p. 7 through all p. 8 of translation).
Park does not explicitly teach that the drive system comprises an electric motor and a gearing arrangement. Faris 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 form the drive system to comprise an electric motor and gearing arrangement, as such structure is conventionally used to produce a pivoting motion (Fig. 15, ¶0038, 0066, 0070).
Park teaches that the controller 110 is configured to independently change the orientation of the array of PV modules and the angle at which the fluid conveyance sprays water (see discussion of Figs. 4 in the translation). Further, the controller and associated hardware are configured to take real-time images and working parameters of the PV modules, as modifying the operation of the fluid conveyance to accommodate wind or rain (p. 9-10 of translation). While it is not explicitly recited by Park that the controller is configured to select the cleaning orientation based on a dripped-water footprint and that the controller is configured to change the selected cleaning orientation during the delivery of water to change the dripped-water footprint, 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 enable this intended use in light of Sourd’s teachings, which teaches that the orientation of collectors receiving water thereon should be controlled in order to channel the water towards crops, between crops, or in order to avoid high impact water contact to leaves and fruits (middle p. 6 of translation).
Per claim 3, modified-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. The controller is configured to select the cleaning orientation based on a measure of cleaning efficacy (p. 7 of translation: “The controller 110… when the operation mode of the photovoltaic device 100 is the first operation mode, the nozzle unit 131A of the orientation of the photovoltaic panel and the watering device… 131B may generate a first control signal for controlling the driving device so that the jetting directions of the liquids face each other.”; “when the operation mode of the photovoltaic device 100 is the first operation mode, the orientation direction and watering device of the photovoltaic panel 120A… it is possible to generate a first control signal for controlling the driving device so that the jetting direction of the liquid in the nozzle portion 131A of the water device faces each other.”).
Per claim 6, modified-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park teaches that the controller 110 is configured to independently change the orientation of the array of PV modules and the angle at which the fluid conveyance sprays water (see discussion of Figs. 4 in the translation). Further, the controller and associated hardware are configured to take real-time images and working parameters of the PV modules, as modifying the operation of the fluid conveyance to accommodate wind or rain (p. 9-10 of translation). While it is not explicitly recited by Park that the controller is configured to select the cleaning orientation based on a dripped-water footprint and that the controller is configured to select different cleaning orientations for different deliveries of water so as to enable different dripped-water footprints, 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 enable this intended use in light of Sourd’s teachings, which teaches that the orientation of collectors receiving water thereon should be controlled in order to channel the water towards crops, between crops, or in order to avoid high impact water contact to leaves and fruits (middle p. 6 of translation).
Per claim 7, modified-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park teaches that the controller 110 is configured to independently change the orientation of the array of PV modules and the angle at which the fluid conveyance sprays water (see discussion of Figs. 4 in the translation). Further, the controller and associated hardware are configured to function according to a schedule of cleaning the PV modules, and to evaluate the modules by taking real-time images and working parameters of the PV modules, as well as modifying the operation of the fluid conveyance to accommodate wind or rain (p. 9-10 of translation). Therefore, since the controller is capable of choosing a cleaning orientation, and a time period for delivering water to the PV modules, a skilled artisan would understand that the system is capable of being configured to perform the intended use of claim 7.
Per claim 8, modified-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park teaches that the controller 110 is configured to independently change the orientation of the array of PV modules and the angle at which the fluid conveyance sprays water (see discussion of Figs. 4 in the translation). Further, the controller and associated hardware are configured to function according to a schedule of cleaning the PV modules, and to evaluate the modules by taking real-time images and working parameters of the PV modules, as well as modifying the operation of the fluid conveyance to accommodate wind or rain (p. 9-10 of translation). Therefore, since the controller is capable of choosing a cleaning orientation of at least one of the PV modules and dynamically changing the orientation, a time period for delivering water to the PV modules, and evaluating the cleanliness and working parameter of the modules, a skilled artisan would understand that the system is capable of being configured to perform the intended use of performing an optimization of a water-usage value function based on a current state thereof, by dynamically selecting one or more cleaning orientations based on optimization of the value function, and the control, based on the optimization of the value function, at least one of the PV modules to switch between a respective first orientation to a respective second orientation to increase a value of the current state.
Per claim 9, modified-Park teaches the limitations of claim 8. As noted, Park is capable of determining a cleanliness of the PV modules and a duration of spraying water on the modules. Therefore a skilled artisan would understand that the optimization of the value function can be based on a measure of cleaning efficacy.
Per claim 10, modified-Park teaches the limitations of claim 8. While it is not explicitly recited by Park that the controller is configured to optimize the value function that is based on a dripped-water footprint at a cleaning orientation, 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 enable this intended use in light of Sourd’s teachings, which teaches that the orientation of collectors receiving water thereon should be controlled in order to channel the water towards crops, between crops, or in order to avoid high impact water contact to leaves and fruits (middle p. 6 of translation).
Per claim 11, modified-Park teaches the limitations of claim 8. As noted, Park is capable of determining a cleanliness of the PV modules and a duration of spraying water on the modules. Therefore a skilled artisan would understand that the optimization of the value function can be an optimization of a water-usage value function determined by selecting a quantity of water to be delivered to the respective surfaces of the PV modules.
Per claim 12, modified-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. The fluid conveyance includes a spraying device (Ibid.).
Per claim 14, modified-Park teaches the limitations of claim 1. The fluid conveyance is additionally configured to supply a further portion of water directly to the planes (ibid.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 8 of the Remarks that Sourd does not teach “a controller configured to… change the selected cleaning orientation during the delivery of the cleaning water so as to change the dripped-water footprint”. It is the combination of Park, Faris, and Sourd that renders the claimed invention obvious. Indeed, Park teaches all of the claimed structure necessary to control the orientation of PV modules, explicitly showing that the orientation of the PV modules can be changed to intercept the cleaning water and deliver it to a specific location where a group of plants is formed (Figs. 4a, 4b). The newly added limitations to claim 1 merely recite the function of selecting the cleaning orientation with a dripped water footprint in mind. No additional structure is required to perform this function. Sourd alerts a skilled artisan that orientation of PV modules can be chosen so that water dripping off of them does not result in water impact in particular locations. A skilled artisan would therefore understand, from the combination of references, that the controller can be configured to change a footprint of the water that is intentionally directed to the PV modules. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 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 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights