DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . Applicant’s amendment filed December 3, 2025, is entered. Applicant amended claims 1-13 and added claims 14-16. Claims 1-16 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant should adapt a consistent reference for trough-shaped, as claim 1 refers to a “trough shape” and claims 10, 11 and 14 refer to “trough-shaped”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the said box” should be “the box”. Appropriate correction is required.
(3)
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 1-13 and 15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bottom ends" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is unclear as to whether the “one or more support structures” refers to the shaped metal rods or to an additional support. Examiner notes Applicant deleted the reference to “support structures” in amended claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the periodicity of one or more support structures" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the heat sinks placed underneath the box" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is indefinite because the requirement for planar mirrors conflicts with the requirement for concave mirrors in claim 1. Accordingly, the shape of the mirrors is ambiguous.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the same" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 2-13 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
(4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The requirement in claim 10 for planar mirrors contradicts the requirement in claim 1 for concave mirrors. Accordingly, claim 10 is not further limiting of claim 1 because the same mirror cannot be planar and concave. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
(5)
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.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vasylyev et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0137754).
With respect to claim 14, Vasylyev teaches a solar energy collection system (12) comprising one or more linear solar cells (24) arranged along a longitudinal axis, a first set of segmented reflective elements (left side reflectors) disposed on a first side of the one or more solar cells and a second set of segmented reflective elements (right side reflectors) disposed on an opposite side of the one or more solar cells. Figure 4 and Paragraphs 28, 30, 35 and 41.
Vasylyev further teaches each pair of the first segmented reflective elements and the second segmented reflective elements form a trough-shaped concentrator having a plurality of concave reflective surfaces oriented with longitudinal axes parallel to the longitudinal axis of the one or more solar cells, wherein the trough-shaped concentrators are positioned such that reflected solar radiation from both sides is concentrated onto the same one or more solar cells. Figure 4 and Paragraphs 28, 30, 35 and 41.
Vasylyev further teaches one or more additional pairs of reflective mirrors (22) are fixedly arranged on opposing sides of each solar cell to further reflect solar light received from the segmented reflective elements toward the one or more solar cells. Figure 4 and Paragraph 41.
With respect to claim 15, Vasylyev teaches the trough-shaped concentrators are configured to receive incident light from different angular regions and direct respective light toward the same solar cell. Figure 4.
(6)
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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasylyev et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0137754) in view of Mallick et al. (WO 2013/093487) and Meyers (EP 2 133 928 A2).
With respect to claim 1, Vasylyev teaches a system (12) comprising one or more solar cells (24) for converting incident light into electrical energy and one or more segmented reflective elements (left side and right side reflectors) forming a trough shape structure configured to concentrate solar light onto the one or more solar cells. Figure 4 and Paragraphs 28, 30, 35 and 41. The one or more segmented reflective elements comprise a plurality of concave reflective surfaces oriented with parallel longitudinal axis and the one or more solar cells are disposed parallel to the segmented reflective elements. Figure 4 and Paragraphs 28, 30, 35 and 41.
Vasylyev further teaches one or more additional pairs of reflective mirrors (22) are fixedly arranged on opposing sides of the segmented reflective elements to further reflect solar light from the segmented reflective elements to the one or more solar cells. Figure 4 and Paragraph 41.
Vasylyev is silent as to whether the system is contained within a box with a glass top.
However, Mallick teaches solar concentrating systems utilizing reflectors are disposed within a box (collective structure of 520 and 530) comprising a glass top (520). Figure 6a and Page 11, Lines 20-26.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Vasylyev with Mallick is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Vasylyev and Mallick are directed toward solar energy collection systems utilizing reflective elements to redirect incident light onto a solar cell. Mallick teaches such a system is effectively housed within a box comprising a glass top. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose Vasylyev’s system within a box with glass top because Mallick teaches this to be an effective configuration for such a system, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Modified Vasylyev is silent as to whether the bottom ends of the one or more segmented reflective elements are attached together with one or more metal strips.
However, Meyers, which deals with reflective light concentrators, teaches a metal strip (168) is used to connect the ends of two respective reflective members to one another. Figure 1 and Paragraph 18.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of modified Vasylyev with Meyers is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both modified Vasylyev and Meyers are directed toward solar energy collection systems utilizing reflective elements to redirect incident light onto a solar cell. Meyers teaches the reflective elements in the system are connected at their bottom ends with a metal strip. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the reflective elements Vasylyev’s system at their bottom ends with a metal strip because Meyers teaches this to be an effective configuration for such a system, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 13, modified Vasylyev teaches the segmented reflective elements and the additional pairs of reflective mirrors are arranged and shaped to direct solar rays onto the solar cell in a substantially uniform distribution across a surface of the solar cell. Vasylyev, Figure 4 and Paragraph 41.
(7)
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasylyev et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0137754) in view of Mallick et al. (WO 2013/093487) and Meyers (EP 2 133 928 A2), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Ammar (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0223555).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, modified Vasylyev teaches the segmented reflective elements are attached to the glass top of the box (Mallick, Figure 6a) but are silent as to whether it is with the use of an adhesive and with a support rod.
However, Ammar, which deals with solar energy collection systems, teaches the segmented reflective elements of such a system are supported by legs (128). Figures 3 and 4D and Paragraph 109. The legs are secured via an epoxy, which is an adhesive, to the bottom of the reflective elements. Paragraph 63.
Although Ammar is silent as to the material of the support legs, Ammar does teach the kaleidoscope (129) to which the legs are attached is made of metal for heat dissipation. Paragraph 63. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also use metal for the legs because Ammar teaches this performs a heat dissipation function.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of modified Vasylyev with Ammar is the use of a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. Both modified Vasylyev and Ammar teaches systems for concentrating solar energy onto a solar cell surface utilizing segmented reflective elements. Ammar teaches legs are used to support the segmented reflective elements. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include legs to support the segmented reflective elements taught by modified Vasylyev because Ammar teaches this to be an effective support arrangement for segmented reflective elements in solar concentrator systems, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Finally, regarding whether the shape of the support is a leg or a rod, as per the MPEP, as per the MPEP, the shape of an object is an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, the support structure performs a supporting function independent of its shape.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, modified Vasylyev teaches the support structures are periodic in nature, wherein the periodicity of the support structures is multiple (two legs for each solar cell) of the periodicity of the solar cells. Ammar, Figures 3 and 4D.
With respect to claim 6, modified Vasylyev teaches the system comprises one or more support structures placed outside of the last reflective element. Ammar, Figure 3 and 4D. Modified Vasylyev further teaches the system comprises a vertical support structure in the form of the frame placed outside the last reflective element. Mallick, Figure 6a and Page 11, Lines 20-26. The support structures of modified Vasylyev are at least indirectly connected to the vertical support structure due to their shared placement on the same bottom surface of the system.
With respect to claims 7, 8 and 9, modified Vasylyev teaches the box comprises a frame but is silent as to whether the frame is made of metal.
However, Ammar teaches metal is a desirable material for the frame of a solar collector system because it provides rigidity and strength. Paragraph 97.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the frame taught by modified Vasylyev from metal because Ammar teaches doing so provides rigidity and strength to the system.
Furthermore, modified Vasylyev teaches a heat sink is placed in direct thermal communication with the panel for heat extraction, which would be in direct thermal communication with the box and the panel at the bottom of the box when the system is modified in view of Mallick, as explained above. Figure 3 and Paragraph 35. Ammar further teaches, as explained above, the metal performs a heat dissipation function. Paragraph 63.
Accordingly, the references, when considered in combination, teach the metal box is configured to operate as a heat dissipation element by establishing direct thermal communication with the heat sinks placed underneath the box, wherein the solar cells are placed at a bottom of the box in thermal connect with one or more heat sinks for cooling.
With respect to claim 10, regarding the shape of the segmented reflective elements, as per the MPEP, the shape of an object is an obvious design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). In this case, the segmented reflective elements perform a reflective function independent of their shape.
With respect to claim 11, Vasylyev teaches the one or more segmented reflective elements are concave mirrors arranged in a paired arrangement and oriented with parallel longitudinal axis to form a trough-shaped structure. Figure 4.
With respect to claim 12, modified Vasylyev teaches the reflective elements are supported by one or more rods that are distributed evenly. Ammar, Figures 3 and 4D.
Regarding the spacing of the rods, as per the MPEP, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [is[ not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (internal citation omitted). In this case, the rods perform a supporting function independent of their specific spacing.
Finally, “substantially equally on each solar cell to minimize overall efficiency loss” allows for a broad interpretation due to the presence of “substantially” in the claim limitation. In this case, modified Vasylyev teaches a structure within the scope of the claimed invention that would be expected to substantially equally shadow the cells to minimize overall efficiency loss.
(8)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasylyev et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0137754) in view of Meyers (EP 2 133 928 A2).
With respect to claim 16, Vasylyev teaches the first and second sets of segmented reflective elements but is silent as to whether they are mounted using metal strips joining the bottom ends.
However, Meyers, which deals with reflective light concentrators, teaches a metal strip (168) is used to connect the ends of two respective reflective members to one another. Figure 1 and Paragraph 18.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Vasylyev with Meyers is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Vasylyev and Meyers are directed toward solar energy collection systems utilizing reflective elements to redirect incident light onto a solar cell. Meyers teaches the reflective elements in the system are connected at their bottom ends with a metal strip. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the reflective elements Vasylyev’s system at their bottom ends with a metal strip and use this to mount them because Meyers teaches this to be an effective configuration for such a system, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(9)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the rejection.
(10)
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 ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759