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 amendments filed on 7/25/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
112f
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation of “the storage unit comprises at least one of the following means: electrochemical storage means such as a battery, thermochemical storage means, gas compression means, thermal storage hubs, thermomechanical storage means” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification [para. 34-36], “The various technologies in particular comprise 20 electrochemical storage means such as a battery, thermochemical storage means, gas compression means, thermal storage hubs, thermomechanical storage means. In addition, the type of storage unit 9a, 9b selected also depends on the duration of the storage considered, in particular for thermal storage.” is disclosed corresponding with the limitations.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner suggests deleting the limitation of “means” from the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Davico (FR3099684, Machine Translation)
Regarding Claim 1, Davico et al. teaches a solar system [Fig. 1, page 1/5 of translated document] comprising a solar shade configurated to be arranged in a crop area [14, Fig. 1, bottom of page 4/5 and top of page 5/5], said solar shade comprising at least one hybrid solar panel [46 and 20, Fig. 1, bottom of page 3/5] configured to produce thermal energy and electrical energy [middle of page 3/5, fig. 1, top of page 4/5],
a storage unit [26, Fig. 1, bottom of page 3/5] for storing the thermal and electrical energy generated by the at least one hybrid solar panel [Fig. 1, bottom of page 3/5].
Davico et al. teaches further comprising a thermal circuit configured to provide thermal regulation to the crop area [see sensor 62, Fig. 1, top and middle of page 4/5]
a fluidic circuit in fluid connection with the hybrid solar panel [fig. 1, top of page 4/5]
Davico et al. teaches further comprising a heat exchanger in the hydraulic thermal circuit or the fluidic circuit [Fig. 1, bottom of page 3/5],
the hydraulic thermal circuit in fluid contact with the fluid circuit to allow a passage of a fluid from the fluidic circuit to the hydraulic thermal circuit [Fig. 1, bottom of page 3/5, see pumps 52 and 54].
Regarding Claim 5, Davico et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Davico et al. teaches wherein the storage unit is a reservoir arranged at the interface between the fluid circuit and the hydraulic thermal circuit [Fig. 1, bottom of page 3/5].
Regarding Claim 8, Davico et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Davico et al. teaches wherein the solar panel generates electrical energy and wherein the thermal circuit is an electrical thermal circuit configured to provide thermal regulation to the crop area form the electrical energy stored in the storage unit [Fig. 1, bottom of page 3/5, the control system automatically controls the pumps of system, middle of page 4/5].
Regarding Claim 10, Davico et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Davico et al. teaches wherein the storage unit comprises at least one of the following means:
-thermal storage hubs [See water tank 26 Fig. 1, top of page 3/5].
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.
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(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davico (FR3099684, Machine Translation) in view of Kelly (US Pub No. 2018/0142461)
Regarding Claim 6, Davico et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Davico et al. is silent on wherein the reservoir is an underground tank.
Kelly et al. teaches the use of an underground water tank [0052-0053] in the ground [0051-0052].
Since Davico et al. teaches the use of a water tank, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the tank Kelly et al. to be under ground as taught by Kelly et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
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.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davico (FR3099684, Machine Translation) in view of Lee (US Pub No. 20210376787)
Regarding Claim 9, Davico et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Davico et al. is silent on wherein the electrical thermal circuit comprises at least one of the following equipment:
-heating resistors or electric convectors arranged in the crop area
-a regulated air circulation device,
-heating elements configured to blow air onto the crops.
Lee et al. teaches a PVT system comprising an air circulation system [Fig. 2B, 0286] that circulates air in a greenhouse [0389].
Since Davico et al. teaches the system comprising a PVT located in a greenhouse [bottom of page 2/5], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporated the air circulation system of Lee et al. with the PVT of Davico et al. in order to provide improvements for harvesting thermal energy and improved efficiency of the solar panels [0002-0003].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davico (FR3099684, Machine Translation) in view of Chen (US Pub No. 2016/0102910)
Regarding Claim 11, Davico et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Davico et al. is silent on further comprising a device for drying agricultural stocks and wherein said drying device is powered from the electrical energy stored in the storage unit.
Chen et al. teaches the use of a blower for drying the greenhouse [0038].
Since Davico et al. teaches a system in a greenhouse, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the blower of Chen et al in the system of Davico et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional drying means for greenhouses in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
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.).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davico (FR3099684, Machine Translation) in view of Camfield (US Pub No. 2020/0333046)
Regarding Claim 12, Davico et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Davico et al. is silent on further comprising a charging station for agricultural equipment and wherein the charging station is powered from the electrical energy stored in the storage unit.
Camfield et al. teaches a energy management system connected to a charging station [1010, Fig. 6, 0140], which is connected to a batteries or thermal storage [0139] powered by a solar collector [0073-0075].
Since Davico et al. teaches the system comprising a PVT located in a greenhouse [bottom of page 2/5], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention utilized the energy management system of Camfield with the system of Davico et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
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.).
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Davico et al. teaches comprising electrical equipment intended to be arranged in an agricultural building and wherein said electrical equipment is powered from the electrical energy stored in the storage unit [See rejection of claim 12]
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davico (FR3099684, Machine Translation) in view of Hall (US Pub No. 2012/0067339)
Regarding Claim 14, Davico et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Davico et al. is silent on wherein the solar shade comprises a mobile element and an electric motor configured to move said mobile element and wherein said electric motor is powered from the electrical energy stored in the storage unit.
Hall et al. teaches use of motors to adjust the position of the panels, which allows for a desired amount of light to the crops below [Fig. 1, 7, and 9, 0044].
Since Davico et al. teaches the use of shading structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify the PVT panels of Davico et al. with the motors of Hall et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
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.).
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Davico et al. teaches wherein the mobile element makes it possible to modify the orientation of the solar panel as well as a shadow projected from the solar shade on the crop area [See rejection of claim 14].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the arguments about the hybrid solar panel, Davico et al. teaches said solar shade comprising at least one hybrid solar panel [46 and 20, Fig. 1, bottom of page 3/5]. The combination of 56 and 20 meets the limitation of a hybrid solar panel. 46 is the thermal panel and 20 is the solar panel.
Regarding the arguments about the heat exchanger, the water tank 26 is adapted to contain water intended to circulate in the first water circuit 28 and in the second water circuit 30. The water tank has a water capacity in relation to the desired heat exchange [bottom of page 3/5].
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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728