Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/685,683

PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM FOR LOW SOLAR ELEVATION ANGLES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 22, 2024
Examiner
CARLSON, KOURTNEY SALZMAN
Art Unit
1721
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
255 granted / 581 resolved
-21.1% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+40.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
603
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
49.6%
+9.6% vs TC avg
§102
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 581 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Summary This is the first action on the merits for application 18/685,683, filed February 22, 2024. This is a 371 application depending from PCT/EP2022/074507, filed September 2, 2022, and also claiming priority to EP document 21382798.3, filed September 6, 2021. Claims 1-15 have been preliminarily cancelled. Claims 16-35 have been added. Claim Objections Claims 16, 25-27, 31 and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 seemingly has extra spacing between words in multiple places. Line 3 has an extra space between “system” and “comprising”. Line 6 has an extra space between “module” and “with”. Line 7 has an extra space between “module” and “in”. Claim 31 seemingly has extra spacing between words. Line 2 has an extra space between “surfaces” and “or”. Line 2 has an extra space between “facets” and “is”. Claim 33 seemingly has extra spacing between words. Line 8 has an extra space between “reflectors” and “in”. Line 9 has an extra space between “module” and “in”. Claims 25-27 refer to “the reflecting facets” but claim 16 just uses the term “facets”. Please correct this to be consistent with the parent claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 16 describes the facets to be “parallel to an azimuthal direction rotated ± 54° away from the north-south axis”, but this phrasing is unclear. It is unclear if the Applicant is referring to the rotation to occur from the angle parallel to the azimuthal direction or if the ± 54° away from the north-south axis is indicative of the angle which is parallel to the azimuthal direction. In prosecution of this application abroad, like EP 4145699A1, there is a comma between direction and rotated which indicates the angle is that which is parallel to azimuthal direction. Please make clear the intent of this terminology by utilizing a comma between “direction” and “rotated” (as in the EP application) or make clear in the description of the rotation of ± 54° away from the north-south axis from a direction parallel to an azimuthal direction. Claims 17-32 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected base claim 16. Claims 20-24 and 35 refer to “the solar reflectors” but this term lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the Applicant is referring to the specular reflectors or the facets of the reflectors, but regardless solar reflector is not introduced previously. Please correct the term to be consistent with the prior claims. Claim 31 refers to “at least one of the reflective surfaces or facets” but it is not clear if the Applicant is referring to the “reflectors” of the body of claim 16, “reflective surfaces” of the preamble (which is unclear how it is different from the reflectors), “facets” or a different reflective surface. Please amend the term “reflective surfaces” to be clear as to what reflective surface is being discussed. Claim 32 refers to “placing on the reflectors the plurality of facets”. This terminology does not make grammatical sense and needs correction but in the same line the Applicant states “placing said facets within the reflectors”. From these portions of claim 32, the facets are taught to be “on” and “within” the reflectors. Please amend the claim to reflect the location of the facets either within or on the reflector and correct the grammatical discrepancy by stating “placing the plurality of the facets” either in or on the reflectors (if on, please remove the language stating the facets are also within). Claim 33 describes the facets to be “parallel to an azimuthal direction rotated ± 54° away from the north-south axis”, but this phrasing is unclear. It is unclear if the Applicant is referring to the rotation to occur from the angle parallel to the azimuthal direction or if the ± 54° away from the north-south axis is indicative of the angle which is parallel to the azimuthal direction. In prosecution of this application abroad, like EP 4145699A1, there is a comma between direction and rotated which indicates the angle is that which is parallel to azimuthal direction. Please make clear the intent of this terminology by utilizing a comma between “direction” and “rotated” (as in the EP application) or make clear in the description of the rotation of ± 54° away from the north-south axis from a direction parallel to an azimuthal direction. Claims 34 and 35 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 33. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and fix the objections above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest available prior art includes the following. PANISH (US PG PUB 2017/0222600A1) teaches a bifacial photovoltaic system (figure 4A) including metallic or substantially specular reflector surfaces (402a/402b), said bifacial photovoltaic system (401) comprising:- at least a bifacial photovoltaic module (401) mounted on a support structure (404) in a position substantially perpendicular to the east-west axis, with an allowable deviation of ± 200(shown to face north/south in figure 4A, perpendicular to east-west),- at least two metallic or substantially specular reflectors (402a/402b) on each side (while one is shown, separation of the single reflector into a plurality would have been obvious) of the bifacial photovoltaic module (401), and characterized in that the reflectors (402a/402b) are positioned are tilted to face each side of the bifacial photovoltaic module (401) (see figure 4A), so that the planes comprising the reflectors intersect the planes comprising the bifacial photovoltaic module at an angle substantially of 730, with an allowable deviation of ± 20° (paragraph [0115] including 90-50 degree angles), but PANISH fails to disclose reflectors with a diffuse reflectance being less than half of the total hemispheric reflectance, wherein a width of the reflectors in the direction perpendicular to the north-south axis is 1.67 times the height of the photovoltaic module in the direction perpendicular to the ground, with an allowable deviation of ± 30% of said width, wherein the reflectors comprise a plurality of facets parallel to an azimuthal direction rotated ± 540 away from the north-south axis with an allowable deviation of ± 200, the direction of said rotation being so that the outer ends of the facets farthest from the photovoltaic module are rotated away from the equator. Similarly, FINKL (US Patent 5,538,563A) teaches a bifacial photovoltaic system (figure 1) including metallic or substantially specular reflector surfaces (2), said bifacial photovoltaic system (5) comprising:- at least a bifacial photovoltaic module (5) mounted on a support structure (3) in a position substantially perpendicular to the east-west axis, with an allowable deviation of ± 200 (shown to face north/south in figure 1, perpendicular to east-west),- at least two metallic or substantially specular reflectors (2) on each side (while one is shown, separation of the single reflector into a plurality would have been obvious) of the bifacial photovoltaic module (5), and characterized in that the reflectors (2) are positioned are tilted to face each side of the bifacial photovoltaic module (5) (see figure 2), and wherein the reflectors comprise a plurality of facets (“corrugated reflector sheet”, c. 3, l. 23-28), but fails to address reflectors with a diffuse reflectance being less than half of the total hemispheric reflectance, characterized in that the reflectors are tilted to face each side of the bifacial photovoltaic module, so that the planes comprising the reflectors intersect the planes comprising the bifacial photovoltaic module at an angle substantially of 730, with an allowable deviation of± 200, wherein a width of the reflectors in the direction perpendicular to the north-south axis is 1.67 times the height of the photovoltaic module in the direction perpendicular to the ground, with an allowable deviation of ± 30% of said width, wherein the reflectors comprise a plurality of facets parallel to an azimuthal direction rotated ± 540 away from the north-south axis with an allowable deviation of ± 200, the direction of said rotation being so that the outer ends of the facets farthest from the photovoltaic module are rotated away from the equator. References such as APPELDORN et al (US Patent 4,800,868A) do not address an entire photovoltaic system, but rather show a faceted (61/62) reflector positioned at 60° relative to a collector (figure 7, and its accompanying description indicating φ=30°, therefore the angle between reflector and collector is 60° as figure 7 shows a right angle total). However, APPELDORN et al fails to disclose the plurality of facets parallel to an azimuthal direction rotated ± 540 away from the north-south axis with an allowable deviation of ± 200, the direction of said rotation being so that the outer ends of the facets farthest from the photovoltaic module are rotated away from the equator. CITRON (US PG PUB 2020/0235698A1) shares the same deficiency wherein the plurality of facets parallel to an azimuthal direction rotated ± 540 away from the north-south axis with an allowable deviation of ± 200, the direction of said rotation being so that the outer ends of the facets farthest from the photovoltaic module are rotated away from the equator, but rather show facets parallel to the central collector (figures 3 and 4). For at least the above reasons, the claims read free of the prior art, absent the above 35 USC 112(b) and objection concerns. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0197968A1 is directed to the use of deflector and reflector components at a 90 degree orientation relative to bifacial cells, which seemingly comprise a shorter bifacial cell relative to a longer reflector or deflector, but the exact sizing is not directly clear. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F. 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. /KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 12/13/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 22, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588349
ALL-PRINTED BIFACIAL CARBON-BASED PEROVSKITE SOLAR MODULE WITH TAILORABLE OPTOELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS MADE UNDER AMBIENT AIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580516
SOLAR PANEL ROOF SYSTEM WITH RAISED ACCESS PANELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568694
PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE WITH A LAMINATED POTTED PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562676
LEVERS FOR SOLAR PANEL CLAMP ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12550476
DOUBLE-SIDED SOLAR CELL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+40.5%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 581 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month