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The previous objection to the claims are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 102 rejections over Vasiliev and De La Fuente Sanchez are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejections are revised to incorporate new claim structure.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0364257 to De La Fuente Sanchez, and further in view of US 2016/0204297 to Vasiliev (both of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, De La Fuente Sanchez teaches a solar window system (Figs. 6, 7) comprising
A window frame (not specifically labeled, but clearly bounding window panes of window 11200, in Figs. 6A, 6B, ¶0117, 0118)
A plurality of photovoltaic cells (panel 11099 of Figs. 6, 7, comprises a plurality of cells, labeled 11102 in Figs. 7A, 7B, ¶0112, 0113)
An inverter for converting direct current electric energy generated by the plurality of photovoltaic cells into alternating current electric energy (Figs. 7C, 7D show that power from the system is delivered to a power outlet 11717, ¶0122, 0123; a skilled artisan would understand that the electric energy from the photovoltaic cells must necessarily go through an inverter before such delivery, according to Figs. 1A, ¶0088)
The plurality of photovoltaic cells being disposed on an outer surface of the window frame (all embodiments of Figs. 6, 7 are disposed on an outer surface of the previously identified window frame)
The inverter being electrically connected to the plurality of photovoltaic cells.
De La Fuente Sanchez further teaches that a solar window system as illustrated in the embodiments of Figs. 5-7 comprise a power management system (Fig. 5B, ¶0116), similar to an energy management system of another embodiment (Fig. 2C, ¶0102), which comprises charge controller circuitry and a rechargeable battery and is located proximate to the other elements of the solar window system. Further embodiments show an AC distributor (wire ending in plug 10007 in Fig. 1A), such that the inverter (10006) is electrically connected between an analogous plurality of photovoltaic cells and the AC distributor. The embodiment of Fig. 1A includes a first plurality of photovoltaic cells (associated with 10003) and a second plurality of photovoltaic cells (associated with 10002) within the plurality of photovoltaic cells (¶0088). Further, each of the first and second plurality of cells is associated with a current distributor (such as 10005), such that the current distributor and AC distributor are connected in series. The reference does not teach that the inverter comprises a first inverter and a second inverter. 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 include an inverter specifically electrically connected to each plurality of photovoltaic cells, as Vasiliev teaches such a configuration is suitable for such a solar window system (Fig. 1, ¶0094, 0095). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Therefore 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 a system in which a first AC distributor is electrically connected between the first plurality of photovoltaic cells and a first inverter, a second AC distributor is electrically connected between the second plurality of photovoltaic cells and a second inverter, and in which the first AC distributor is electrically connected in series with the second AC distributor, because it is the result of an obvious improvement to De La Fuentes Sanchez in view of Vasiliev.
The embodiment of Fig. 7D of De La Fuente Sanchez illustrates an unlabeled element that is mounted beneath a windowsill on an inside of a window, from which a wire extends to an outlet (11717). A skilled artisan would understand that this element provides a counter weight to the plurality of photovoltaic cells on the other side of the window (¶0112-0116), and also functions similar to the headrail (10110) of the embodiment of Fig. 2C, which also encloses the components of the energy management system (¶0102). Therefore, 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 counter weight element as an enclosure, mounted beneath a windowsill, such that the first AC distributor, second AC distributor, first inverter, and second inverter are enclosed in the enclosure, as such an element is contemplated by the reference. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Per claim 3, modified-De La Fuentes Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1. 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 electrically connect an electric device (11718) to the second AC distributor in order to power such a device (¶0123 of De La Fuente Sanchez).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De La Fuente Sanchez and Vasiliev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0116497 to Sanders (of record).
Regarding claim 6, modified-De La Fuentes Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1. While De La Fuente Sanchez does not teach that the first AC distributor and second AC distributor are not microinverters, Sanders 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 use such elements for such systems because they are smaller than typical inverters (¶0009, 0017-0019, 0051).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De La Fuente Sanchez and Vasiliev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0308047 to LeMay (of record).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 12, modified-De La Fuente Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 1. That reference further teaches that a solar window system as illustrated in the embodiments of Figs. 5-7 comprise a power management system (Fig. 5B, ¶0116), similar to an energy management system of another embodiment (Fig. 2C, ¶0102), which comprises a rechargeable battery electrically connected to the plurality of photovoltaic cells and located proximate to the other elements of the solar window system. De La Fuente Sanchez does not specifically teach a circuit breaker and charge controller, the circuit breaker being electrically connected between the charge controller and the plurality of photovoltaic cells, the rechargeable battery being electrically connected to the charge controller, the charge controller being configured to charge the rechargeable battery. However, LeMay teaches that a circuit breaker (similar to 711a of Fig. 7) electrically connected between a charge controller (304) and a plurality of photovoltaic cells (701) can make the system more effective in off-grid usage (¶0029, 0038-0039, 0045). Further, LeMay teaches that such an improvement should be combined with electrically connecting the rechargeable battery (302) to the charge controller so that the charge controller can charge the rechargeable battery (¶0037). Therefore 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 combine the teachings of modified-De La Fuente Sanchez and LeMay to achieve charging of the battery.
Per claim 8, modified-De La Fuente Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 7. De La Fuente Sanchez also teaches that the system further comprises an electrical outlet (11717 of Fig. 7D, ¶0123). While the embodiment of Fig. 7D does not explicitly recite that the inverter is electrically connected between the charge controller and the electrical outlet, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a configuration is necessary in order to connect the electrical output of the system to the outlet (Fig. 1A, ¶0088).
Per claim 9, modified-De La Fuente Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 8. The embodiment of Fig. 7D illustrates an unlabeled element that is mounted beneath a windowsill on an inside of a window, from which a wire extends to an outlet (11717). A skilled artisan would understand that this element provides a counter weight to the plurality of photovoltaic cells on the other side of the window (¶0112-0116), and also functions similar to the headrail (10110) of the embodiment of Fig. 2C, which also encloses the components of the energy management system (¶0102). Le May teaches that disposing an electrical outlet on an enclosure (such as 611 of Fig. 6b) can assist in the system being used efficiently in off-grid situations (¶0004, 0029, 0031, 0043). Therefore, 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 counter weight element as an enclosure, mounted beneath a windowsill, such that the circuit breaker, charge controller, rechargeable battery, and inverter are enclosed in the enclosure, the electrical outlet being disposed on the enclosure, as such elements are contemplated by the combination of references. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Per claim 12, modified-De La Fuente Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 7. LeMay 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 use a miniature circuit breaker as the circuit breaker (¶0039).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De La Fuente Sanchez, Vasiliev, and LeMay as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sanders.
Regarding claim 6, modified-De La Fuentes Sanchez teaches the limitations of claim 7. While De La Fuente Sanchez does not teach that the inverter is a microinverter, Sanders teaches 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 use such elements for such systems because they are smaller than typical inverters (¶0009, 0017-0019, 0051).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/19/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach an enclosure configured to enclose the first AC distributor, the second AC distributor, the first inverter, and the second inverter. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, A skilled artisan would understand that this element provides a counter weight to the plurality of photovoltaic cells on the other side of the window (¶0112-0116), and also functions similar to the headrail (10110) of the embodiment of Fig. 2C, which also encloses the components of the energy management system (¶0102). As the components of the energy management system of modified-De La Fuente Sanchez teaches all of the claimed components, it would have been obvious to enclose them in an enclosure, as is taught by the reference.
In response to applicant's argument that positioning the inverter on the interior of the system results in internal energy circulation within each individual dwelling unit, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 on (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