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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged.
While claims 26 and 27 explicitly include the limitations of claim 1, they are still restricted from group I, as new claims 26 and 27 are a distinct process of use and group I is a distinct product. The claimed product can be operated without orienting to a particular cleaning orientation. Therefore claims 26 and 27 are withdrawn from examination, as being drawn to a non-elected invention. However, these claims may become eligible for rejoinder upon identification of an allowable product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR10-2020-0020263 to Park (document and translation included in Applicant’s 12/17/2024 IDS), and further in view of US 2005/0091916 to Faris.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 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 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).
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 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 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.).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Faris as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FR3077463 to Sourd (machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 5, 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 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).
Regarding 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).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Faris as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sourd.
Regarding 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).
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 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