Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/691,601

FOLDABLE PHOTOVOLTAIC ASSEMBLY FOR A PORTABLE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 13, 2024
Examiner
MALLEY JR., DANIEL PATRICK
Art Unit
1726
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Cep-Ip Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
268 granted / 476 resolved
-8.7% vs TC avg
Strong +47% interview lift
Without
With
+47.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
533
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 476 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 3, 7-10, and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species A, B, and C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 10th, 2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of species D corresponding to claims 1-2, 4-6, 11-13, and 15 in the reply filed on September 10th, 2025 is acknowledged. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the support element is attached to the internal and to the external major surface of two adjacent photovoltaic laminates” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim(s) 5. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 1-2, 4-6, 11-13, and 15 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. Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a row of interconnected photovoltaic laminates”, and “adjacent photovoltaic laminates”. Its unclear of the adjacent photovoltaic laminates correspond to one of the photovoltaic laminates within the interconnected row or if the adjacent photovoltaic laminates are distinct elements. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the photovoltaic laminate”. Its unclear if Applicant is referring to a photovoltaic laminate with the row of interconnected photovoltaic laminates or is referencing the adjacent photovoltaic laminates. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “at least two support elements”, and “the corresponding support element”. Its unclear if the corresponding element is one of the at least two support elements or if a different support element is being introduced. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “the support element”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if this is referencing the at least two support elements or the corresponding support element. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites, “the support element”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if this is referencing the at least two support elements or the corresponding support element. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites, “two adjacent photovoltaic laminates”. Its unclear if Applicant is referring to a photovoltaic laminate with the row of interconnected photovoltaic laminates or is referencing the adjacent photovoltaic laminates. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “the support element”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if this is referencing the at least two support elements or the corresponding support element. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “adjacent photovoltaic laminates”. Its unclear if Applicant is referring to a photovoltaic laminate with the row of interconnected photovoltaic laminates or is referencing the adjacent photovoltaic laminates. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “the support element”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if this is referencing the at least two support elements or the corresponding support element. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “each adjacent photovoltaic laminate”. Its unclear if Applicant is referring to a photovoltaic laminate with the row of interconnected photovoltaic laminates or is referencing the adjacent photovoltaic laminates. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “the corresponding photovoltaic laminate”. Its unclear if Applicant is referring to a photovoltaic laminate with the row of interconnected photovoltaic laminates or is referencing the adjacent photovoltaic laminates. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 11, Applicant recites, “preferably provided with a protective cover”. Its unclear if the protective cover is required. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 12, Applicant recites, “the support element”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if this is referencing the at least two support elements or the corresponding support element. Appropriate action is required. Regarding Claim 12, Applicant recites, “the photovoltaic laminate”. Its unclear if Applicant is referring to a photovoltaic laminate with the row of interconnected photovoltaic laminates or is referencing the adjacent photovoltaic laminates. Appropriate action 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 1-2, 5-6, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grant (US 2018/0306467 A1). In view of Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner, Grant discloses a photovoltaic assembly for a portable solar energy system (Figs. 1-5 – Paragraph 0067-0071), the photovoltaic assembly comprising: a row of interconnected photovoltaic laminates, each photovoltaic laminate comprising a pair of longitudinal and a pair of transverse side edges and defining an internal and an external major surface (See Annotated Grant Fig. 13, below); a foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure comprising articular members (Fig. 13, #8) the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure being movable between a folded position and an operative position (Fig. 12, A-C); wherein the stiffening and or supporting structure further comprises at least two support elements (Fig. 13, #4 is present on each side of the adjacent PV laminates), each support element is attached to the internal major surface of longitudinal side edges of adjacent photovoltaic laminates (Fig. 15, #4 is attached between the PV laminates and underneath the internal major surface of PV laminates 5); each element having a closed cross-section and comprising a first lateral face perpendicular to the internal major surface of the photovoltaic laminate (Fig. 13, the “outside surface” of 4 that element 32 is present on); wherein one or more articulated members of the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure are connected in an articulated manner to the first lateral face of the corresponding element (Fig. 13, #8 is connected to the outside surface of 4) Annotated Grant Fig. 13 PNG media_image1.png 669 685 media_image1.png Greyscale In view of Claim 2, Grant is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Grant teaches the support element comprises a second lateral face opposite the first one (Fig. 13, the opposite surface that the “outside surface” of 4 that element 32 is present on). In view of Claim 5, Grant is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Grant teaches that the support element (Fig. 13, #4) is attached to the internal and to the external major surface of two adjacent photovoltaic laminates (Fig. 13, #4 middle elements are attached to the PV laminates rigidly and thus are inherently “attached” to the internal and external major surface of the adjacent PV laminates). In view of Claim 6, Grant is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Grant teaches the support element can comprises on its upper side at least one clamping unit for clamping side edges of adjacent photovoltaic laminates (Fig. 11, #9b). In view of Claim 11, Grant is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Grant discloses the support element is attached to each adjacent photovoltaic laminate by a corresponding auxiliary member, each auxiliary member being attached to the upper side of the support element, each auxiliary member defining a groove for the reception of the side edge of a corresponding photovoltaic laminate (Fig. 11, #9b & Paragraph 0060 – the side edges of the clamp provide the grooves for adjacent laminates). In view of Claim 12, Grant is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Grant discloses the support element defines a first distance from the internal major surface of the photovoltaic laminate to the edge of the first lateral face farthest from said internal major surface in a direction perpendicular to said internal major surface, and wherein the articulated members of the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure in its folded position (distance is same folded or operative), define a second distance from the internal major surface to the edge of the articulated member farthest from said internal major surface in a direction perpendicular to said internal major surface and wherein said first distance being equal or greater than said second distance Annotated Grant Fig. 13 PNG media_image2.png 460 557 media_image2.png Greyscale In view of Claim 13, Grant is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Grant teaches that the articulated members are connected in an articulated manner to their corresponding support element by an interconnection pin (Fig. 13, #32 – Paragraph 0073). In view of Claim 15, Grant is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Grant teaches the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure comprises one or more reinforcing members interconnecting the articulated members (Fig. 13, #33-#34). 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US 2018/0306467 A1) in view of Boake “Hinge and Pin Connections”. In view of Claim 4, Grant is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Grant does not disclose that the one or more articulated members of the foldable stiffening and/or supporting structure are connected in an articulated manner to the second lateral face of the support element. Boake discloses that when a pin connection is made to an articulated member that the pin goes through the entirety of the material, thus the articulated member is connected to both first and second lateral faces of a support element (See Associated Figures where the pin goes completely through the material and is present on both lateral faces of a support element). Boake discloses that hinge and pin connections are some of the simplest connections to find (Page 1, 1st Paragraph), wherein the diameter of the bolt must be large enough to handle shear force and the thickness of the plate must be adjust when combined with the bolt diameter to resist pull through (Page 1, 4th-5th Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the articulated members of Grant be connected to the second lateral face of the support element to ensure that the connection can handle shear force and resist pull through. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST. 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 T 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. /DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 13, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604541
PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION MODULE, PADDLE, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12581788
SOLAR CELL AND SOLAR CELL MODULE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580521
SOLAR MODULE SYSTEM, SOLAR SYSTEM, AND MOUNTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575315
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIALS AND DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567543
PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION ELEMENT AND SOLAR CELL MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+47.1%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 476 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