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 amendment filed 5/12/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous art rejections are revised to incorporate new claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 6, 9, 10, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0315193 to Linderman (of record).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 10, Linderman teaches a solar module tracking apparatus comprising
A solar module 1901 (Fig. 19, ¶0080; also see 101 of Fig. 1) having a first side (facing element 1904 of in Fig. 19) that includes a plurality of photovoltaic cells (Fig. 1 shows analogous side 126, ¶0033) and a second side (Fig. 1 shows analogous side 127, obscured by 1910) that is opposite the first side (Fig. 1 shows analogous second side 127 of module 101), the solar module having a solar module length and a solar module width (Fig. 4 best shows the dimensions of an exemplary solar module 403, where the width extends roughly up-down in the frame of the Fig. and the length extends left-right, ¶0077-0079), the solar module length and the solar module width laying in a first plane
A wind distribution panel (including 1902, 1908 of Fig. 19) spaced apart from the second side of the solar module 1901 to define a plenum between the wind distribution panel and the solar module (Figs. 8, 9 shows an exemplary wind distribution panel including 812, 821 or 902, 906; the panel is explicitly included to introduce air between the solar module and the panel, ¶0091-0095), the wind distribution panel having a wind distribution panel length and a wind distribution panel width (Figs. 16, 19 best show the analogous length and width of a wind distribution panel, wherein the wind distribution panel length and width extend in similar directions as the solar module length and the solar module width), the wind distribution panel length and the wind distribution panel width laying in a second plane (see Marked-up Fig. 8 below, which identifies a specific length and width dimension), the second plane being different from the first plane (Marked-up Fig. 8 shows the projections of the first and second planes for that embodiment, where the first plane is parallel to but displaced from the second plane), wherein the wind distribution panel further comprises a first deflection extension (812 in Marked-up Fig. 8, 1908 in Fig. 19)
A torque tube (not shown in Fig. 19, 121 in Fig. 1, 801 in Fig. 8) that is configured to rotatably move the solar module and the wind distribution panel (¶0049, 0050).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Linderman teaches a first deflection extension (labeled 812 in Marked-up Fig. 8 - Alternate directly below) that is angled away from the solar module 1901 at least some of where the first deflection extends out from a first end of the wind distribution panel beyond the solar module (812 is angled away from a lateral edge of 1901), the first deflection extension angled away from the solar module at an angle ranging from 5 to 85 degrees relative to the wind distribution panel (MPEP §2125).
PNG
media_image2.png
354
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 1. The first plane is parallel to the second plane at all rotation al positions of the torque tube (see Marked-up Fig. 8 above, ¶0063; other Figs. and text describe that the wind solar module and wind distribution panel are fixed with respect to the support structure).
Per claim 3, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 2. The wind distribution panel length is equal to the solar module length (Figs. 1, 16; MPEP §2125).
Per claim 4, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 3. Linderman clearly teaches that the wind distribution panel width is greater than the solar module width (see Marked-up Fig. 8 above).
Per claim 6, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 2. The reference is clear that the wind distribution panel is configured to direct wind into the plenum (Fig. 9). It is not explicitly stated that the wind directed into the plenum reduces a magnitude of wind-induced pressure load at the solar module. However it is expected that the structure necessarily teaches such a property. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Per claim 9, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 1. The first plane is parallel to the second plane (see Marked-up Fig. 8 above, ¶0063; other Figs. and text describe that the wind solar module and wind distribution panel are fixed with respect to the support structure), and the first deflection extension (812 of Fig. 8, 902 of Fig. 9) is at least partially outside of the second plane.
Per claim 10, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 9. The wind distribution panel further comprises a second deflection extension (821 of Fig. 8, 906 of Fig. 9) that extends out from the second end of the wind distribution panel and extends out beyond the solar module, the second end of the wind distribution panel being opposite the first end of the wind distribution panel.
Regarding claims 13-18, Linderman teaches a solar module apparatus comprising
A solar module 1901 (Fig. 19, ¶0080; also see 101 of Fig. 1) having a first side (facing element 1904 of in Fig. 19) that includes a plurality of photovoltaic cells (Fig. 1 shows analogous side 126, ¶0033) and a second side (Fig. 1 shows analogous side 127, obscured by 1910) that is opposite the first side (Fig. 1 shows analogous second side 127 of module 101), the solar module having a solar module length and a solar module width (Fig. 4 best shows the dimensions of an exemplary solar module 403, where the width extends roughly up-down in the frame of the Fig. and the length extends left-right, ¶0077-0079), the solar module length and the solar module width laying in a first plane
A wind distribution panel (including 1902, 1908 of Fig. 19) spaced apart from the second side of the solar module 1901 to define a plenum between the wind distribution panel and the solar module (Figs. 8, 9 shows an exemplary wind distribution panel including 812, 821 or 902, 906; the panel is explicitly included to introduce air between the solar module and the panel, ¶0091-0095), the wind distribution panel having a wind distribution panel length and a wind distribution panel width (Figs. 16, 19 best show the analogous length and width of a wind distribution panel, wherein the wind distribution panel length and width extend in similar directions as the solar module length and the solar module width), the wind distribution panel length and the wind distribution panel width laying in a second plane (see Marked-up Fig. 8 above, which identifies a specific length and width dimension), the second plane being different from the first plane (Marked-up Fig. 8 above shows the projections of the first and second planes for that embodiment, where the first plane is parallel to but displaced from the second plane), wherein the wind distribution panel further comprises a first deflection extension (812 in Marked-up Fig. 8, 1908 in Fig. 19).
Linderman teaches a first deflection extension (labeled 812 in Marked-up Fig. 8 - Alternate above) that is angled away from the solar module 1901 at least some of where the first deflection extends out from a first end of the wind distribution panel beyond the solar module (812 is angled away from a lateral edge of 1901), the first deflection extension angled away from the solar module at an angle ranging from 5 to 85 degrees relative to the wind distribution panel (MPEP §2125).
Per claim 14, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 13. The first plane is parallel to the second plane (see Marked-up Fig. 8 above, ¶0063; other Figs. and text describe that the wind solar module and wind distribution panel are fixed with respect to the support structure).
Per claim 15, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 14. The wind distribution panel length is equal to the solar module length (Figs. 1, 16; MPEP §2125) and the wind distribution panel width is greater than the solar module width (see Marked-up Fig. 8 above).
Per claim 16, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 14. The reference is clear that the wind distribution panel is configured to direct wind into the plenum (Fig. 9). It is not explicitly stated that the wind directed into the plenum reduces a magnitude of wind-induced pressure load at the solar module. However it is expected that the structure necessarily teaches such a property. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Per claim 17, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 13. The wind distribution panel further comprises a second deflection extension (821 of Fig. 8, 906 of Fig. 9) that extends out from the second end of the wind distribution panel and extends out beyond the solar module, the second end of the wind distribution panel being opposite the first end of the wind distribution panel.
Per claim 18, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 17. The first plane is parallel to the second plane (see Marked-up Fig. 8 above, ¶0063; other Figs. and text describe that the wind solar module and wind distribution panel are fixed with respect to the support structure), and each of the first deflection extension (812 of Fig. 8, 902 of Fig. 9) and the second deflection extension (821 of Fig. 8, 906 of Fig. 9) is at least partially outside of the second plane.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linderman as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 7, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 6. Linderman specifically teaches that the solar module (“receiver” in the text) and the wind distribution panel (a part of the “airflow accelerator”) are spaced apart from each other by an air gap to define the plenum (¶0058, 0063). While Linderman does not specifically teach the magnitude of the spacing, 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 vary the spacing (discussed in the text as the positioning of the air flow accelerator) to optimize the air flow through the plenum (Fig. 9, ¶0039, 0040, 0047, 0056, 0092, 0094).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linderman as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 11, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 10. The second deflection extension is at least partially outside of the second plane (see Marked-up Fig. 8 above). While Linderman does not explicitly recite that the first deflection extension and the second deflection extension are symmetrical about the wind distribution panel, 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 vary respective size of the extensions and angles of the extensions (discussed in the text as the size and positioning of the air flow accelerator) to optimize the air flow through the plenum (Figs. 9, 11, ¶0039, 0040, 0047, 0056, 0092, 0094, 0096-0109).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
As such, a symmetrical distribution of the first deflection extension and second deflection extension about the wind distribution panel is an obvious result of such optimization.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linderman as applied to claim 18 above.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Linderman teaches the limitations of claim 18. While Linderman does not explicitly recite that the first deflection extension and the second deflection extension are symmetrical about the wind distribution panel, 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 vary respective size of the extensions and angles of the extensions (discussed in the text as the size and positioning of the air flow accelerator) to optimize the air flow through the plenum (Fig. 9, 11, ¶0039, 0040, 0047, 0056, 0092, 0094, 0096-0109).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
As such, the limitations recited in claim 20 regarding the angles of the first and second deflection extension with respect to the wind distribution panel are obvious results of such optimization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
While the references relied upon in the rejections above were previously made of record, the reasoning above is new. Particularly, the newly amended claims recite that a first deflection extension is angled away from the solar module. As noted above, Linderman teaches an analogous extension that is angled away from a lateral end of the analogous solar module. Therefore, Linderman teaches the limitation of “a first deflection extension that is angled away from the solar module at least some of where the first deflection extends out from a first end of the wind distribution panel beyond the solar module”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN205369734U, US 2002/0195989.
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 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 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights