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 .
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.
(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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al (US 2009/0284998).
Regarding claim 6 Zheng teaches a scan control device (see 110) that controls a scanning process in a system in which a plurality of solar modules is connected (see 208), each of the plurality of solar modules including a solar panel (see 202), a sensor that acquires an output voltage of the solar panel (see 120), and a power generation control unit that controls power generation by the solar panel based on the output voltage of the solar panel (see 125), the scan control device comprising: a processor configured to
determine whether a first solar panel in the plurality of solar modules outputs a predetermined voltage, wherein a first solar module in the plurality of solar modules that includes the first solar panel that the processor determined does not output the predetermined voltage is a control target solar module (see para 0119 Figs 7A, 7B and 7C); and
in a case where the processor determines that the first solar panel does not output the predetermined voltage, instruct the power generation control unit of the control target solar module to control the power generation by a second solar panel in the plurality of solar modules that is different from the control target solar module, wherein a second solar module in the plurality of solar module includes the second solar panel (see Fig. 8 and para 0136-0140).
Regarding claims 7 and 19 Zheng teaches wherein the first solar panel and the second solar panel are installed in locations that have a correlation in solar radiation conditions with each other, wherein the first solar panel and the second solar panel are exposed to equivalent sunlight to each other (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8 Zheng teaches wherein the second solar module comprises a DCDC converter (see para 0044), and the processor is further configured to acquire information regarding operation status of the second solar module, instruct the first solar module to perform power generation control of the first solar panel based on the information, and obtain a voltage command value for the DCDC converter that obtained a maximum power point in the second solar panel, by reflecting a light transmittance and a light attenuation rate of the second solar panel (see 0050-0054).
Regarding claims 9 and 21 Zheng teaches wherein a normal direction and curvature of a surface of the first solar panel are same as a normal direction and curvature of a surface of the second solar panel (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18 Zheng teaches wherein the predetermined voltage is equal to or greater than a minimum voltage taken in a solar radiation situation (see 468 and 472, Fig. 4B and 1204, Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 20 Zheng teaches wherein the processor is further configured to obtain information regarding operation status of the second solar module, instruct the first solar module to perform power generation control of the first solar panel based on the information, obtain a voltage command value in which a light transmittance and a light attenuation rate of the second solar panel are reflected in a voltage command value of a DCDC converter connected to the second solar panel in which a maximum power point is obtained in the second solar panel (see 0050-0054).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-17, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Kim (US 20160126385).
Regarding claims 10, 12, 14, 16 and 22 and 11, 13, 15, 17 and 23 Zheng teaches The scan control device.
Yet does not disclose;
wherein the first solar panel and the second solar panel are stacked and joined with each other
and
wherein the first solar panel and the second solar panel are stacked and joined with each other so as to be exposed to same solar radiation condition.
However, Kim in the same field teaches wherein the first solar panel and the second solar panel are stacked and joined with each other
and
wherein the first solar panel and the second solar panel are stacked and joined with each other so as to be exposed to same solar radiation condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zheng with the teachings of Kim by having the first solar panel and the second solar panel are stacked and joined with each other and wherein the first solar panel and the second solar panel are stacked and joined with each other so as to be exposed to same solar radiation condition in order to decrease space improve efficiency, and significantly boosting overall energy production that maximizes electricity generation in a small area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants arguments that In Zhang, each module operates independently, and no cross-module control logic is present, is not considered persuasive.
During examination application must be done using broadest reasonable interpretation, as currently drafted the claims do not require that the solar panels in the scan control device do not require the operation to be done in tandem nor independently The Examiner therefor can interpret the claim using broadest interpretation. Further assuming that the claim language was drafted in a narrow manner that the solar panels are stack an unless they are designed to capture different wavelengths of sunlight they would act similarly or in such a way that the differences would be negligible.
All other remarks are considered yet not found persuasive.
Therefore, in order to expedite the prosecution of this application, The Examiner recommends the applicant to amend the claims by including structural components that are different from the prior art applied in order to distinguish the claim invention from the prior art of record.
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 ELIM ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7114. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:30pm.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached on (571) 272-7492. 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.
/ELIM ORTIZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2836