DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for 18/539,439, filed 12/14/2023, which claims priority to Taiwanese application TW112137029, filed 9/27/2023, after the request for continued examination filed 3/10/2026.
Claims 1-11 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 3/10/2026, the prior art rejections are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0376613 A1: This reference teaches a solar array with a power optimizer Fig. 7).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites the term “second DC optimizers” in line 7. It is the Examiner’s position that this limitation should read “second DC optimizer.” Appropriate correction 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orr, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0368058 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Orr teaches a solar power system (Fig. 6, with details given in Fig. 5A, paragraphs [0077]-[0091]).
The system of Orr comprises a first solar photovoltaic panel 510 converting light energy into electrical energy to generate a first solar voltage (Fig. 5A, paragraph [0077]).
The system of Orr comprises a buck converter 590 that receives voltage from a solar panel and converts it to a lower output voltage (paragraph [0081]).
Orr teaches that the buck converter 590 is controlled by a controller that frequency at which switches 570 and 580 are opened and closed (paragraph [0081]).
These disclosures teach the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the system comprises a first direct-current (DC) optimizer (corresponding to buck converter 590) receiving the first solar voltage and performing a first voltage decreasing operation on the first solar voltage according to a first pulse width modulation signal (i.e. according the switching frequency of switches 560/570) to generate a first conversion voltage.
It is noted that the limitations “receiving the first solar voltage and performing a first voltage decreasing operation on the first solar voltage according to a first pulse width modulation signal to generate a first conversion voltage,” and “wherein the first DC optimizer adjusts a first duty cycle of the first pulse width modulation signal according to the first conversion voltage” and “receiving a voltage signal and adjusting the first duty cycle of the first pulse width modulation signal according to the voltage signal thereby tracking a maximum output voltage of the first DC optimizer” are intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
In reference to Claim 2, Orr teaches that the first solar photovoltaic panel 510 comprises: a plurality of solar cells 521 connected in series, wherein the plurality of solar cells convert light energy into electrical energy to generate the first solar voltage (Fig. 5A, paragraph [0077]).
In reference to Claim 3, Fig. 5A teaches that the first solar photovoltaic panel and the first DC optimizer are arranged on a single solar power module. This is further shown in Fig. 6 (paragraphs [0086]-[0088]).
In reference to Claim 4, Fig. 6 teaches that the system further comprises a power inverter 620 coupled to the first DC optimizer (shown as part of item 621 in Fig. 6).
Fig. 6 teaches that the power inverter 620 receives the first conversion voltage and generates an alternating-current (AC) output voltage according to the first conversion voltage (paragraph [0086]).
It is noted that the limitation “receives the first conversion voltage and generates an alternating-current (AC) output voltage according to the first conversion voltage” is an intended use limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 5, Fig. 6 teaches that the system further comprises a second solar photovoltaic panel converting light energy into electrical energy to generate a second solar voltage (item 612, which has the structure of the panel setup in Fig. 5A).
Fig. 6 teaches that the system comprises a second DC optimizer 622 associated with the second solar panel 612.
Orr teaches that each panel of the system of his invention comprises a buck converter 590 that receives voltage from a solar panel and converts it to a lower output voltage (paragraph [0081]).
Orr teaches that the buck converter 590 is controlled by a controller that frequency at which switches 570 and 580 are opened and closed (paragraph [0081]).
These disclosures teach the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the system comprises a second direct-current (DC) optimizer (corresponding to buck converter 590 of panel 612) receiving the second solar voltage and performing a second voltage decreasing operation on the second solar voltage according to a second pulse width modulation signal (i.e. according the switching frequency of switches 560/570 associated with panel 612) to generate a second conversion voltage.
These disclosures teach the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the second DC optimizers adjusts a second duty cycle of the second pulse width modulation signal according to the second conversion voltage (paragraphs [0081]-[0083]).
In reference to Claim 6, Fig. 6 teaches that the system further comprises a power inverter 620 coupled to the first DC optimizer (shown as part of item 621 in Fig. 6) and the second DC optimizer (shown as part of item 622 in Fig. 6).
Orr teaches that the first DC optimizer and the second DC optimizer output the first conversion voltage and the second conversion voltage in series to generate a series DC input voltage (paragraph [0086]).
Orr teaches that the power inverter receives the series DC input voltage and converts the series DC input voltage into an AC output voltage (paragraphs [0086]-[0088]).
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.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orr, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0368058 A1) in view of Garrity (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0081933 A1).
In reference to Claim 7, Orr teaches that the first solar photovoltaic panel comprises a first solar cell group 511 comprising a plurality of first solar cells 521 connected in series (Fig. 5A, paragraphs [0077]-[0078]).
Because these solar cells are taught to produce a voltage (paragraph [0078]), this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the first solar cell group converts light energy into electrical energy to generate the first solar voltage.
Orr teaches that the first solar photovoltaic panel comprises a second solar cell group 512, electrically connected to the first solar cell group 511, comprising a plurality of second solar cells 521 connected in series (Fig. 5A, paragraphs [0077]-[0078]).
Because these solar cells are taught to produce a voltage (paragraph [0078]), this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the second solar cell group 512 converts light energy into electrical energy to generate a second solar voltage.
Orr does not teach that “the first DC optimizer comprises: a first sub-DC optimizer receiving the first solar voltage and performing the first voltage decreasing operation on the first solar voltage according to the first pulse width modulation signal to generate the first conversion voltage; and a second sub-DC optimizer receiving the second solar voltage and performing a second voltage decreasing operation on the second solar voltage according to a second pulse width modulation signal to generate a second conversion voltage, wherein the first sub-DC optimizer adjusts the first duty cycle of the first pulse width modulation signal according to the first conversion voltage, and the second DC optimizer adjusts a first duty cycle of the second pulse width modulation signal according to the second conversion voltage.”
To solve the same problem of providing a solar array with buck boosters associated with each solar panel, Garrity teaches an embodiment (Fig. 11a, paragraph [0124]) in which three separate photovoltaic strings within a solar module each comprise their own DC optimizer (Garrity, Figs. 2a-b, paragraphs [0053] and [0063]-[0064]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the solar panel of Orr to comprise a separate DC optimizer for each string, based on Garrity’s disclosure that this is a suitable configuration for a DC optimizer/cell string system for a solar panel.
Forming the solar panel of Orr to comprise a separate DC optimizer for each string teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the first DC optimizer comprises: a first sub-DC optimizer receiving the first solar voltage and performing the first voltage decreasing operation on the first solar voltage according to the first pulse width modulation signal to generate the first conversion voltage; and a second sub-DC optimizer receiving the second solar voltage and performing a second voltage decreasing operation on the second solar voltage according to a second pulse width modulation signal to generate a second conversion voltage, wherein the first sub-DC optimizer adjusts the first duty cycle of the first pulse width modulation signal according to the first conversion voltage, and the second DC optimizer adjusts a first duty cycle of the second pulse width modulation signal according to the second conversion voltage.
The function of the optimizers was discussed in the rejection of Claim 1 above, and is described in paragraph [0081] of Orr.
It is noted that the limitations “receiving the first solar voltage and performing the first voltage decreasing operation on the first solar voltage according to the first pulse width modulation signal to generate the first conversion voltage,” “receiving the second solar voltage and performing a second voltage decreasing operation on the second solar voltage according to a second pulse width modulation signal to generate a second conversion voltage,” “adjusts the first duty cycle of the first pulse width modulation signal according to the first conversion voltage,” and “adjusts a first duty cycle of the second pulse width modulation signal according to the second conversion voltage” are intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the first solar cell group, the second solar cell group, the first sub-DC optimizer, and the second sub-DC optimizer are arranged on the same solar power module. Fig. 5A teaches that the panel and its associated DC optimizer(s) are arranged on a single solar power module. This is further shown in Fig. 6 (paragraphs [0086]-[0088]).
In reference to Claim 9, Fig. 6 of Orr teaches that the system further comprises a power inverter 620 coupled to the first sub-DC optimizer and the second sub-DC optimizer (both of which would be part of item 621 in Fig. 6, per the modification described in the rejection of Claim 7 above).
Orr teaches that the DC optimizers of his invention output first conversion voltages and are connected in series (paragraph [0086]).
Therefore, modified Orr teaches that the first sub-DC optimizer and the second sub-DC optimizer output the first conversion voltage and the second conversion voltage in series to generate a series DC input voltage.
Modified Orr further teaches that the power inverter receives the series DC input voltage and converts the series DC input voltage into an AC output voltage (paragraphs [0086]-[0088]).
In reference to Claim 10, the system of Orr comprises a buck converter 590 that receives voltage from a solar panel and converts it to a lower output voltage (paragraph [0081]).
Orr teaches that the buck converter 590 is controlled by a controller that frequency at which switches 570 and 580 are opened and closed (paragraph [0081]).
These disclosures teach the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the first DC optimizer comprises: a buck converter 590 receiving the first solar voltage and performing the voltage decreasing operation on the first solar voltage according to the first pulse width modulation signal (i.e. according the switching frequency of switches 560/570) to generate the first conversion voltage
Orr teaches that the system of his invention comprises a controller receiving the voltage signal and adjusting the first duty cycle of the first pulse width modulation signal according to the voltage signal thereby tracking a maximum output voltage of the first DC optimizer (paragraphs [0082]-[0085]).
Orr does not teach that the system of his invention comprises an analog-to-digital converter receiving the first conversion voltage and performing an analog-to-digital conversion operation on the first conversion voltage to generate the voltage signal, or that the controller is a microcontroller.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar array with buck boosters associated with each solar panel, Garrity teaches an embodiment (Fig. 4b, paragraph [0075]) in which a DC-DC converter includes an analog-to-digital converter for interfacing with a microcontroller of the system (Fig. 4b, paragraph [0075]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included an analog-to-digital converter to transmit the converted DC signal to the controller of the system of Orr, because Garrity teaches that this configuration is suitable and successful in connecting converted DC output of a buck converter to a controller (paragraph [0075]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the controller of Orr to be a microcontroller, based on Garrity’s disclosure that this is a suitable form for a controller interfacing with a buck converter in a solar panel.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the system comprises an analog-to-digital converter receiving the first conversion voltage and performing an analog-to-digital conversion operation on the first conversion voltage to generate the voltage signal, and wherein the controller is a microcontroller.
It is noted that “receiving the first solar voltage and performing the voltage decreasing operation on the first solar voltage according to the first pulse width modulation signal to generate the first conversion voltage,” “receiving the first conversion voltage and performing an analog-to-digital conversion operation on the first conversion voltage to generate a voltage signal,” and “receiving the voltage signal and adjusting the first duty cycle of the first pulse width modulation signal according to the voltage signal thereby tracking a maximum output voltage of the first DC optimizer” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
In reference to Claim 11, Orr teaches that the first DC optimizer further comprises a communication module coupled to the microcontroller, corresponding to communication structure between the microcontroller (which is the controller of modified Orr, as described in the rejection of Claim 10 above) and the input current and voltage from the panel (Fig. 5D, paragraphs [0081]-[0085]).
Orr teaches that the microcontroller/controller is configured to perform to: receive a control signal through the communication module (i.e. to sense a voltage input, paragraphs [0081]-[0085]) and adjust the first duty cycle of the first pulse width modulation signal according to the control signal (paragraph [0082]).
It is noted that “configured to perform to: receive a control signal through the communication module and adjust the first duty cycle of the first pulse width modulation signal according to the control signal, or transmit status information of the first solar photovoltaic panel to the outside through the communication module” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
Alternatively, Orr teaches that the first DC optimizer further comprises a communication module coupled to the microcontroller, corresponding to the user interface 674 (Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0101]-[0102]).
Orr teaches that the microcontroller/controller of his invention is configured to transmit status information of the first solar photovoltaic panel to the outside through the communication module (i.e. to communicate the operating status of the bypass switching arrangement to a user, paragraph [0101]).
It is noted that “configured to transmit status information of the first solar photovoltaic panel to the outside through the communication module” is an intended use limitation of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
