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 *** does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The drawing objection has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 15 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Thiel et al. in regards to claim have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Lillywhite et al. are maintained.
New rejections follow.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 12, Applicant recites, “MOLLE compatible”. Its unclear how this limitation further limits the connection features. Its unclear what exactly corresponds to MOLLE compatible. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “corrosion resistant and temperature resistant plastic”. Its unclear how the phrases, “corrosion resistant” and “temperature resistant”, structurally limit the plastic. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Lillywhite et al. teaches a portable solar panel (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a flexible substrate (Fig. 1-3, 5B, #60 & Paragraph 0030);
an array of solar cells supported on the flexible substrate (Fig. 3, #42/#44 & Paragraph 0027);
a port supported on the flexible substrate and configured to receive power collected by the array of solar cells and to enable connection to the array of solar cells for delivery of power via the port (Fig. 7B, #100 & Paragraph 0039); and
a set of connection features disposed along a periphery of the flexible substrate, the set of connection features comprising elongated openings defined in the flexible substrate (Figs. 1 & 3, #98 – Paragraph 0032)
In regards to the limitation that the elongated openings are “configured to be MOLLE compatible”, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
In view of Claim 12, Lillywhite et al. discloses a portable solar panel assembly (Fig. 3), comprising: a solar panel having an array of solar cells (Fig. 3, #42/#44 & Paragraph 0027-0028), and a flexible periphery (See Annotated Lillywhite et al. Figure 1, below – Paragraph 0028 – the whole solar panel assembly is flexible), a support structure configured to removably attach to the flexible solar panel when the portable solar panel assembly is in a deployed state (Figs 7B-C, #78 & Paragraph 0038); a kickstand configured to removably attach to the support structure and configured to prop the flexible solar panel up when the portable solar panel assembly is in a deployed state (Figs. 7B-C, #80 & Paragraph 0038); and a bag configured to removably attach to the solar panel (Figs 3 & 5A, #90 & Paragraph 0038 – its attached to the kickstand that’s removably attached to 78) and configured to hold an electronic device connectable to the solar panel (Paragraph 0034).
Annotated Lillywhite et al. Figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
644
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Cooper “MOLLE: The Modern Tactical Load Carrying System”.
In view of Claim 1, Lillywhite et al. teaches a portable solar panel (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a flexible substrate (Fig. 1-3, 5B, #60 & Paragraph 0030);
an array of solar cells supported on the flexible substrate (Fig. 3, #42/#44 & Paragraph 0027);
a port supported on the flexible substrate and configured to receive power collected by the array of solar cells and to enable connection to the array of solar cells for delivery of power via the port (Fig. 7B, #100 & Paragraph 0039); and
a set of connection features disposed along a periphery of the flexible substrate, the set of connection features comprising elongated openings defined in the flexible substrate (Figs. 1 & 3, #98 – Paragraph 0032)
In regards to the limitation that the elongated openings are “configured to be MOLLE compatible”, Lillywhite discloses that the elongated openings are configured to coupled to a backpack using a rope, or zip-tie etc. (Fig. 3, #98 & Paragraph 0032). Cooper discloses MOLLE backpacks have been an integral part of the standard issue military backpacks as well as being embraced by first responders, hunters, backpackers, hikers, and extreme outdoor athletes (Page 1, Lines 1-3) that comprises a pouch ladder attachment system that consists of durable nylon straps attached to exterior surfaces of the Main MOLLE backpacks that consists of horizontal rows of 1 inch wide straps spaced 1 inch apart and sewn to the backing at 1.5 inch intervals (Page 4, Lines 1-4 & associated Figure). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the MOLLE backpack disclosed by Cooper as the backpack of Lillywhite et al. such that the portable solar panel is affixed to the horizontal rows of straps using a rope through the elongated openings, and thus being “MOLLE compatible”, for the advantages of utilizing a backpack that’s been an integral part of the standard issue military backpacks as well as being embraced by first responders, hunters, backpackers, hikers, and extreme outdoor athlete.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Cooper “MOLLE: The Modern Tactical Load Carrying System” in view of Thiel et al. (US 2020/0313610 A1).
In view of Claim 2, Lillywhite et al. and Cooper are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lillywhite does not teach that each solar cell of the array of solar cells is configured to function independently of each other cell of the array of solar cells.
Thiel et al. ‘610 discloses that when at least one bypass diode is installed across at least one solar cell that at least one bypass diode provides a current path around shaded cells to prevent the shaded cells from overheating or burning out (Paragraph 0291). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a bypass diode on each individual cell of Thiel et al’ ‘656 such that each solar cell is configured to function independently of each other cell for the advantage of providing a current path around shaded cells to prevent the shaded cells from overheating or burning out
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Cooper “MOLLE: The Modern Tactical Load Carrying System” in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0036375 A1).
In view of Claim 3, Lillywhite et al. and Cooper are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lillywhite et al. does not disclose the array of solar cells comprises copper indium gallium diselenide solar cells.
Wang et al. discloses that using CIGS for solar cells provides good flexibility, can be folded and curled and will not be damaged after being folded or curled (Paragraph 0051). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use CIGS solar cells in the array of Lillywhite et al. solar cells to provide good flexibility of the array and avoid the array being damaged when folded or curled.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Cooper “MOLLE: The Modern Tactical Load Carrying System” in view of Xia et al. (US 2019/0028056 A1).
In view of Claim 4, Lillywhite et al. and Cooper are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lillywhite et al. does not disclose that the port is configured to enable connection of the portable solar panel to multiple devices to enable simultaneous charging.
Xia et al. teaches a port supported on a flexible substrate that is configured to receive power collected by an array of solar cells to enable connection to the array of solar cells for delivery of power via the port (Figs. 1-2, #41 & Paragraph 0060). Xia et al. teaches that the port is configured to enable connection of the portable solar panel to multiple devices to enable simultaneous charging (Paragraph 0067). Xia et al. teaches that this configuration enables an array of solar panels to meet the requirements of a load (Paragraph 0016) while enabling a user to charge a mobile device (Paragraph 0067). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to incorporate a port supported on the flexible substrate and configured to receive power collected by the array of solar cells and to enable connection to the array of solar cells for delivery of power via the port in Lillywhite et al. portable solar panel for the advantages of being able to deliver power from the solar panel to meet the requirements of a power load while enabling a user to charge a mobile device and to enable multiple devices to simultaneously charge when they are needed to do so.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Cooper “MOLLE: The Modern Tactical Load Carrying System” in view of Workman et al. (US 2011/0162690 A1).
In view of Claim 5, Lillywhite et al. and Cooper are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lillywhite et al. does not disclose two rigid shafts disposed on opposite edges of the flexible substrate configured to increase stiffness of the flexible substrate.
Workman et al. discloses two rigid shafts disposed on opposite edges of a flexible substrate configured to increase the stiffness of a flexible substrate in order to ensure a flexible substrate is rigidified sufficiently to be leaned upon or against something without collapsing on itself (Fig. 3, top and bottom shaft & Fig. 4, shafts touch opposite edges of substrate – Paragraph 0024). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate two rigid shafts disposed on opposite edges of the flexible substrate configured to increase stiffness of the flexible substrate as disclosed by Workman in Lillywhite et al. portable solar panel for the advantage of being able to ensure a flexible substrate is rigidified sufficiently to be leaned upon or against something without collapsing on itself.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Cooper “MOLLE: The Modern Tactical Load Carrying System” in view of Muchow et al. (US 2012/0090659 A1).
In view of Claim 6, Lillywhite et al. and Cooper are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lillywhite et al. does not disclose additional connection features comprising openings disposed between cells of the array of solar cells.
Muchow et al. discloses additional connection features comprising openings disposed between cells of an array of solar cells that advantageously selectively increase the flexibility along a folding axis (Figs. 1A-B, #15 – Paragraph 0027 – perforations are “openings”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the additional connection features of Muchow disposed along the fold of Lillywhite et al. in the form of perforations to selectively increase the flexibility along the folding axis.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Cooper “MOLLE: The Modern Tactical Load Carrying System” in view of Thiel et al. (US 2024/0113656 A1).
In view of Claim 7, Lillywhite et al. and Cooper are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lillywhite does not disclose an antenna operatively connected to the port and configured to boost signal reception when the portable solar panel is connected to a signal receiving device via the port.
Thiel et al. teaches an antenna operatively connected to a port (Fig. 40A, #3198) and configured to boost signal reception when the portable solar panel is connected to a signal receiving device via the port (Fig. 39 & Paragraph 0248) that advantageously allows the portable solar panel to send information to at least one remote device and/or receive information from at least one remote device (Paragraph 0168). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add an antenna do Lillywhite et al. portable solar panel such that its operatively connected to the port and configured to boost signal reception when the portable solar panel is connected to a signal receiving device via the port to advantageously allows the portable solar panel to send information to at least one remote device and/or receive information from at least one remote device.
Claims 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Thiel et al. (US 2024/0113656 A1).
In view of Claims 12 & 18, Lillywhite et al. discloses a portable solar panel assembly (Fig. 3), comprising: a solar panel having an array of solar cells (Fig. 3, #42/#44 & Paragraph 0027-0028), and a flexible periphery (See Annotated Lillywhite et al. Figure 1, below – Paragraph 0028 – the whole solar panel assembly is flexible), a support structure configured to removably attach to the flexible solar panel when the portable solar panel assembly is in a deployed state (Figs 7B-C, #78 & Paragraph 0038); a kickstand configured to removably attach to the support structure and configured to prop the flexible solar panel up when the portable solar panel assembly is in a deployed state (Figs. 7B-C, #80 & Paragraph 0038); and a bag configured to removably attach to the solar panel (Figs 3 & 5A, #90 & Paragraph 0038 – its attached to the kickstand that’s removably attached to 78) and configured to hold an electronic device connectable to the solar panel (Paragraph 0034).
Annotated Lillywhite et al. Figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
644
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lillywhite et al. does not disclose a bag configured to removably attach to the solar panel and configured to hold an electronic device connectable to the solar panel such that the bag includes one or more straps configured to rotate freely about a point where the straps are coupled to the bag.
Thiel et al. discloses a bag configured to removably attach to a support structure of a solar panel (Fig. 43, solar panel is attached to the bag via MOLLE which can be removed & Paragraph 0106), the bag holds an electronic device connectable to the flexible solar panel (Fig. 43A, #3120 connected to electronic devices in the interior of the bag Fig. 39), wherein the bag has straps that are configured to freely rotate about a point where the straps are coupled to the bag (Paragraph 0106 – the bag comprises numerous straps that can “dangle” freely from the bag. Thiel et al. teaches that a portable battery pack that is MOLLE compatible can be made to affix to other equipment on a user’s body using straps, snaps, hook and loop tape, snaps, ties, bucklers, and/or clips for applications while enabling the battery pack to be utilized by a number of NATO armed forces (Paragraph 0016). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the bag of Thiel et al. to be usable for the portable solar panel of Lillywhite et al. for the advantage of being able to use the flexible solar panel of Lillywhite et al. by a number of NATO armed forces.
Claims 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Thiel et al. (US 2024/0113656 A1).
In view of Claim 13, Lillywhite et al. and Thiel et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Lillywhite et al. teaches a first set of connection features (Figs. 1 & 3, #98 – Paragraph 0032). In regards to the limitation that the first set of connection features are “configured to be MOLLE compatible”, Lillywhite discloses that the first set of openings are configured to be coupled to a backpack using a rope, or zip-tie etc. (Fig. 3, #98 & Paragraph 0032). Cooper discloses MOLLE backpacks have been an integral part of the standard issue military backpacks as well as being embraced by first responders, hunters, backpackers, hikers, and extreme outdoor athletes (Page 1, Lines 1-3) that comprises a pouch ladder attachment system that consists of durable nylon straps attached to exterior surfaces of the Main MOLLE backpacks that consists of horizontal rows of 1 inch wide straps spaced 1 inch apart and sewn to the backing at 1.5 inch intervals (Page 4, Lines 1-4 & associated Figure). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the MOLLE backpack disclosed by Cooper as the backpack of Lillywhite et al. such that the portable solar panel is affixed to the horizontal rows of straps using a rope through the first set of connection features, and thus being “MOLLE compatible”, for the advantages of utilizing a backpack that’s been an integral part of the standard issue military backpacks as well as being embraced by first responders, hunters, backpackers, hikers, and extreme outdoor athlete.
In view of Claim 14, Lillywhite et al., Cooper, and Thiel et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Lillywhite et al. teaches a second set of connection features different from the first set of connection features (Fig. 5A, #98 center holes).
In view of Claim 16, Lillywhite et al., Cooper, and Thiel et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Lillywhite et al. teaches that the set of second connection features are open pockets of air (Fig. 5A, #98 center holes).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Thiel et al. (US 2024/0113656 A1) in view of Workman et al. (US 2011/0162690 A1).
In view of Claim 15, Lillywhite et al., and Thiel et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Lillywhite et al. does not disclose third set of connection features different form the first set of connection features, the third set of connection features configured to attach to the support structure such that the flexible solar panel is taut when the portable solar panel assembly is in a deployed state.
Workman et al. teaches connection features different form the first set of connection features, the third set of connection features configured to attach to the support structure such that the flexible solar panel is taut when the portable solar panel assembly is in a deployed state (Fig. 4, #9-#10 & paragraph 0022). Workman et al. discloses that this configuration enables foldable flexible solar panels to have sufficient rigidity when being leaned against something so that it will not collapse on itself (Paragraph 0023). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Workman in modified Lillywhite et al. such that a third set of connection features different form the first set of connection features, the third set of connection features configured to attach to the support structure such that the flexible solar panel is taut when the portable solar panel assembly is in a deployed state for the advantages of ensuring the rigidity of the flexible solar panel.
In view of Claim 17, Lillywhite et al., and Thiel et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Lillywhite et al. does not disclose that the support structure includes one or more shock-corded poles.
Workman et al. teaches that a back of a solar panel includes shock-corded poles (Fig. 4, #9-#10 & Paragraph 0019 & 0022). Workman et al. discloses that this configuration enables foldable flexible solar panels to have sufficient rigidity when being leaned against something so that it will not collapse on itself (Paragraph 0023). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Workman in modified Lillywhite et al. such that the support structure includes one or more shock-corded poles for the advantages of ensuring the rigidity of the flexible solar panel.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Thiel et al. (US 2024/0113656 A1) in view of Tan et al. (US 2018/0278206 A1).
In view of Claim 19, Lillywhite et al. and Thiel et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Lillywhite et al. does not disclose the flexible solar panel includes a light sensor and indicator system.
Tan et al. teaches a solar panel includes a light sensor (Paragraph 0053) and indicator system (Paragraph 0057). Tan et al. teaches that the environmental and electrical parameters are important grounds for comprehensively determining the operating status of the solar cell module (Paragraph 0053). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the light sensor and indicator system of Tan et al. in Lillywhite’s portable solar panel for the advantage of comprehensively determining the operating status of the solar cell module
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Thiel et al. (US 2024/0113656 A1) in view of Zambrano “Pros of Clear Backpacks”.
In view of Claim 20, Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Thiel et al. (US 2024/0113656 A1) are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Lillywhite et al. does not disclose a storage tube sized, shaped, and configured to hold the flexible solar panel, the support structure, the kickstand, and the bag, wherein the storage tube is translucent.
Thiel et al. teaches a storage tube sized, shaped, and configured to hold the flexible solar panel, the support structure, the kickstand, and the bag (Figure 29, the bag is “configured to” fit all these items & Paragraph 0209). Thiel et al. teaches that this configuration results in an object retention system (Paragraph 0209). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the storage tube of Thiel et al. which is configured to hole the portable solar panel of Lillywhite et al. that includes the flexible solar panel, the support structure, the kickstand, and the bag for the advantages of adopting a configuration with an object retention system.
Modified Lillywhite et al. does not disclose that the storage tube is translucent.
Zambrano discloses that have translucent storage tubes advantageously allow everything inside the bag to be detected without opening the bag (Page 2, Lines 1-4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the storage bag to be translucent for the advantages of being able to detect everything inside the bag without opening the bag.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al. (US 2024/0113656 A1) in view of Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Cooper “MOLLE: The Modern Tactical Load Carrying System” in view of Formlabs “Additive vs. Subtractive Manufacturing”.
In view of Claim 8, Thiel et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a solar panel comprising:
forming a flexible substrate (Fig. 40A-B, #3114 & Paragraph 0250 – the substrate is foldable and thus flexible);
applying an array of solar cells to a first side of the flexible substrate (Fig. 40A, #3102 & Fig. 41 - Paragraph 0248);
attaching a port to the flexible substrate and connecting the port of the array of solar cells the port configured to enable transfer of power collected by the array of solar cells to an electronic device (Fig. 40A-B, #3198 & Paragraph 0250);
and forming a set of connection features on the flexible substrate (Fig. 43B, #3174 & Paragraph 0250), wherein the set of connections features are attached to a MOLLE surface (Fig. 43B, #3174 – Paragraph 0248).
In regards to the flexible substrate comprising corrosion resistant and temperature resistant plastic, elastic polymers and ripstop material, Thiel et al. discloses that (US 2017/0229692 A1) is incorporated by reference (Paragraph 0001). Thiel et al. ‘692 discloses that the flexible substrate comprises fabric, which is a ripstop material, that is coated with elastic polymers as the layer is flexible in nature, thus elastically bends (Fig. 4, #332 & Paragraph 0090) temperature resistant and anti-corrosive plastic (Paragraph 0074).
Thiel et al. does not explicitly disclose that the set of connection features are MOLLE compatible in the sense that the eyelets can be used to secure the solar panel to “another surface”.
Lillywhite discloses that sets of connection features are configured to be coupled to a backpack using a rope, or zip-tie etc. to facilitate coupling a solar panel to a backpack (Fig. 3, #98 & Paragraph 0032). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the set of connection features of Thiel et al. to connect to the MOLLE/PALS system of Thiel et al. for the advantage of facilitating the coupling of the solar panel to the backpack.
In further regards to the limitation that the set of connection features are “configured to be MOLLE compatible”, Cooper discloses MOLLE backpacks have been an integral part of the standard issue military backpacks as well as being embraced by first responders, hunters, backpackers, hikers, and extreme outdoor athletes (Page 1, Lines 1-3) that comprises a pouch ladder attachment system that consists of durable nylon straps attached to exterior surfaces of the Main MOLLE backpacks that consists of horizontal rows of 1 inch wide straps spaced 1 inch apart and sewn to the backing at 1.5 inch intervals (Page 4, Lines 1-4 & associated Figure). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the portable solar panel affixed to the horizontal rows of straps using a rope or even a zip-tie through the set of connection features, and thus being “MOLLE compatible”, for the advantages of utilizing a MOLLE system that’s been an integral part of the standard issue military backpacks as well as being embraced by first responders, hunters, backpackers, hikers, and extreme outdoor athlete and the results would have been predictable.
Thiel et al. does not explicitly disclosed that the set of connection features formed via subtractive manufacturing but does disclose that the material used in the flexible substrate is fabric (Paragraph 0121).
Formlabs discloses that processes build objects by adding material layer by layer, while subtractive manufacturing removes material to create parts. Though these approaches are fundamentally different, subtractive and additive manufacturing processes are often used side by side due to their overlapping range of applications It can initially be difficult to understand how to make the most of each type of technology to optimize product development and manufacturing. Both have cases where it makes sense to use one approach over the other, for example, one process can be more useful for a certain production volume, or at a specific stage of product development. In this guide, we’ll be taking a closer look at the various additive and subtractive manufacturing techniques and applications to help you decide how to leverage them for your own processes. (Page 1, 1st-3rd Paragraph). Subtractive manufacturing is an umbrella term for various controlled machining and material removal processes that start with solid blocks, bars, rods of plastic, metal, or other materials that are shaped by removing material through cutting, boring, drilling, and grinding. These processes are either performed manually or more commonly, driven by computer numerical control (CNC) (Page 2, 1st Paragraph) and that subtractive manufacturing is generally used for textile/fabrics (Page 3 – See Laser cutting – fabrics), while additive manufacturing (3D printing – Page 3, Last Paragraph) is not disclosed as being used to make a fabric material (See pages 4-5 – Additive manufacturing processes & associated materials). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would understand that manufacturing can be described as either subtractive or additive, while additive manufacturing is not used to make fabric materials, and subtractive manufacturing can start with solar shapes of fabrics that can have material removed to create parts, thus its recognized that there is a finite identified number of predictable methods (See MPEP 2143, I, E) to construct the set of connection features of Thiel It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the set of connection features of Thiel et al. via subtractive manufacturing as its been recognized in the art as a suitable method in the intended purpose of removing material to create this feature and the results would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.07.
In view of Claim 9, Thiel et al., Lillywhite et al., Cooper, and Formlabs are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Formlabs discloses why it would be obvious that the set of connection features are formed via subtractive manufacturing and that this may include laser cutting (Page 3, See Laser cutting).
In view of Claim 10, Thiel et al., Lillywhite et al., Cooper, and Formlabs are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Formlabs discloses why it would be obvious that the set of connection features are formed via subtractive manufacturing and that this may include laser cutting (Page 3, See Laser cutting).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al. (US 2024/0113656 A1) in view of Lillywhite et al. (US 2017/0040932 A1) in view of Cooper “MOLLE: The Modern Tactical Load Carrying System” in view of Formlabs “Additive vs. Subtractive Manufacturing”.
In view of Claim 11, Thiel et al., Lillywhite et al., Cooper, and Formlabs are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8, but does not disclose that the flexible substrate further comprises a phosphorescent layer and a retro-reflective layer.
Pfenninger et al. teaches that a substrate may include a phosphorescent layer (Fig. 4, #402 & Paragraph 0029) and a retro-reflective layer (Fig. 4, #416). Pfenninger et al. teaches that this configuration allows conversion of a wide range of energies of incident solar radiation to a narrow band of energies matched to a bandgap energy of the PV cell that allows significant improvements in efficiency to be achieved (Paragraph 0018). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a phosphorescent layer and a retro-reflective layer in Thiel et al. for the advantages of significantly improving efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in regards to claim 12 that Lillywhite et al. does not disclose that the periphery of the solar panel is flexible. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Lillywhite et al. discloses that the solar panel assembly in and of itself is flexible (Paragraph 0028 – “A solar panel assembly 10 having such PCBs may be flexible e.g., foldable etc). Lillywhite et al. teaches that substantially every portion of the solar panel assembly is flexible, for example the cover layer 30 (Fig. 2, #30 - Paragraph 0024) and cover layer 60 are flexible (Fig. 2, #60 - Paragraph 0030) and there is no intervening layers between 30 and 60 except for a liquid adhesive, which does not contribute any rigidity to the portable solar panel assembly, thus in the sections that don’t include “solid components” such as the solar cell assembly 40 or the structural layer 50, these sections of the portable solar panel assembly would be flexible. Lillywhite discloses that a central section comprised of only cover layer 30 and cover layer 60 are flexible due to the absence of the solar panel sections (Fig. 1 & 4, #20), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the outside periphery sections comprised of the same cover layers 30/60 would be flexible as well. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726