DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed January 12, 2026.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed January 12, 2026, the rejections of claims 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent September 10, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed January 12, 2026, the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent September 10, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the flow of current increases a temperature of the first portion to between 25°C to 150°C”.
The specification, as originally filed, does not evidence applicant had in possession an invention including wherein the flow of current increases a temperature of the first portion to between 25°C to 150°C.
The specification does not discuss or describe flowing current which increases a temperature of the first portion through the range of 25°C to 150°C. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 4 recites, “wherein the solar cells exhibit approximately no performance degradation”.
It is unclear as to the scope of method steps encompassed by the phrase “the solar cells exhibit approximately no performance degradation” and what method steps are specifically excluded by the phrase “the solar cells exhibit approximately no performance degradation” because it is unclear as to what limitations the phrase “exhibit approximately no performance degradation” definitely imparts on the claimed method.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knechtli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,494,302).
With regard to claim 1, Knechtli et al. discloses a method for annealing solar cells in a deployed solar array, the method comprising
flowing current through the solar cells in a first portion of the solar array (such as disclosed on line 31-37, column 3 and depicted Fig. 1, flowing current through the solar cells in a first portion 12b of the solar array),
the current produced by a source external to the solar cells in the first portion of the solar array (such as disclosed on line 31-37, column 3 and depicted in Fig. 1, the current produced by a source external to the solar cells in the first portion 12b of the solar array, such as the current produced by portion 12a, 12c, 12d, 12e, and 12f), wherein
the flow of current increases a temperature of the first portion to between 25°C to 150°C (see line 35-59, column 2 teaching between 100°C and 200°C which is cited to read on the claimed “increases a temperature of the first portion to between 25°C to 150°C” because heating to a temperature between 100°C and 200°C would increase a temperature of the first portion to a temperature in the range of between 25°C to 150°C).
With regard to claim 3, Knechtli et al. discloses wherein
the current in the solar cells flows in a forward bias direction or a reverse bias direction (see Abstract teaching forward bias direction).
With regard to claim 14, Knechtli et al. discloses wherein
the flowing step is performed when the solar cells in the first portion of the solar array are illuminated (see line 8-15, column 3 and Fig. 1 teaching the flowing step is performed when the solar cells in the first portion 12b of the solar array are illuminated).
With regard to claim 15, Knechtli et al. discloses wherein
the solar cells in the first portion of the solar array are in sunlight (see Abstract).
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(s) 6-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knechtli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,494,302).
With regard to claim 6, dependent claim 3 is anticipated by Knechtli et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Knechtli et al. does not disclose wherein the flowing step is performed when the solar cells in the first portion of the solar array are in darkness.
However, performing the flowing step with the first portion in darkness is one in a finite number of immediately recognizable options, finite options being in darkness or illuminated.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tried performing the flowing step with the first portion in darkness because it is one in a finite number of options within the technical grasp of a skilled artesian (see MPEP 2143 E).
With regard to claims 7, 8, and 13, dependent claim 6 is obvious over Knechtli et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Knechtli et al. discloses wherein
a second portion of the solar array is illuminated (see line 8-15, column 3 and Fig. 1 teaching a second portion 12a, 12c, 12d, 12e, and 12f is illuminated), wherein
the second potion of the solar array is in sunlight (see Abstract), wherein
illuminated solar cells in the second portion of the solar array produce the current flowing through the solar cells in the first portion of the solar array (such as disclosed on line 31-37, column 3 and Fig. 1, the illuminated solar cells in the second portion 12a, 12c, 12d, 12e, and 12f produce the current flowing through the solar cells in the first portion 12b of the solar array).
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knechtli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,494,302) in view of Hardin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0053259 A1), and in further view of Saito et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0213461 A1).
With regard to claims 3, 5, and 20, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Knechtli et under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Knechtli et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the current in the solar cells flows in the reverse bias direction.
However, Saito et al. discloses a method for annealing solar cells (see Title and Abstract) and teaches current in the solar cell flows in the reverse bias direction (see [0051-0059] teaching flowing current in both forward and reverse bias directions).
Saito et al. teaches the flow of current provides for increased photoelectric conversion efficiency (see [0051-0059]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current flowing the solar cells of Knechtli et al., as modified above, to include the flow of current as described by Saito et al. because it would have led to increased efficiency.
Knechtli et al., as modified above, teaches wherein the solar cells exhibit approximately no performance degradation as a reverse bias is applied.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knechtli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,494,302), and in further view of Lassiter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0206199 A1).
With regard to claims 9-12, dependent claim 7 is obvious over Knechtli et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Knechtli et al., as modified above, does not disclose further comprising shining a light source on the first portion of the array to further raise the temperature of the first portion.
However, Lassiter et al. discloses a solar cell system (see Title and Abstract). Lassiter et al. teaches a solar cell system, such as on a spacecraft, can utilize solar/thermal power from the sun as well as from a laser which is more energy than using the sun alone (see [0043]). Lassiter et al. teaches utilizing monochromatic light for maximizing efficient conversion (see [0043]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Knechtli et al., as modified above, to include further shining a laser, as suggested by Lassiter et al., on the first portion because it would have provided for more thermal energy than using the sun alone.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knechtli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,494,302) in view of Lassiter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0206199 A1).
With regard to claims 16-19, dependent claim 14 is anticipated by Knechtli et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Knechtli et al. does not disclose further comprising shining a light source on the first portion of the array to further raise the temperature of the first portion.
However, Lassiter et al. discloses a solar cell system (see Title and Abstract). Lassiter et al. teaches a solar cell system, such as on a spacecraft, can utilize solar/thermal power from the sun as well as from a laser which is more energy than using the sun alone (see [0043]). Lassiter et al. teaches utilizing monochromatic light for maximizing efficient conversion (see [0043]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Knechtli et al. to include further shining a laser, as suggested by Lassiter et al., on the first portion because it would have provided for more thermal energy than using the sun alone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the newly added claimed limitations are not found within the previously cited prior art references. However, this argument is addressed in the rejections of the claims above.
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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 April 2, 2026