Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/786,115

PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR COLLECTION SYSTEM AND NATURAL ILLUMINATION APPARATUS FOR BUILDING INTEGRATION

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Examiner
DINH, BACH T
Art Unit
1726
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Morgan Solar Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 966 resolved
-10.1% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1016
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 966 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Summary This is the response to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 03/02/2026. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-8 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. The phare “a louvered configuration” of claim 1 is new matter not supported by the originally filed disclosure because the phrase “louvered configuration” is not explicitly, implicitly or inherently supported by the originally filed disclosure. It is noted that the limitation “each elongated light transmissive optical reflector is positioned between consecutive ones of the plurality of planar bifacial solar cells” is supported by the originally filed disclosure; however, the phrase “louvered configuration”, which is not explicitly recited in the specification, imports additional definitions associated with the phrase that are not possessed by the applicants at the time of filing. It is advised that the phrase “louvered configuration” be deleted from claim 1 to overcome the 112 new matter rejection. 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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paull et al. (US 2016/0064588) in view of Uematsu et al. (US 2001/0008144). Addressing claim 1, Paull discloses an optical collection apparatus (figs. 13-14) comprising: a plurality of elongated light transmissive optical reflectors (the combination surfaces 4+49 and 5+40 of the respective lens blocks 46 and 41 correspond to the claimed light transmissive optical reflectors in the annotated fig. 14 below because fig. 2 shows depending on the incident angle of incoming light, light can be transmitted through the aforementioned surfaces or be reflected by the aforementioned surfaces); and a plurality of planar bifacial solar cells 8 [0094], wherein the plurality of elongated light transmissive optical reflectors are arranged in a louvered configuration such that each elongated light transmissive optical reflector is positioned between consecutive ones of the plurality of planar bifacial solar cells (figs. 12-14), wherein each elongated light transmissive optical reflector has a curvilinear cross-sectional profile (fig. 13 shows each light transmissive optical reflector has a curved surface 39 and linear surface 40, which corresponds to the claimed curvilinear cross-sectional profile) comprising a concave side and a convex side (the curved surface 39 has a concave side and convex side) and wherein the plurality of elongated light transmissive optical reflectors are shaped and positioned to transmit direct light to the plurality of planar bifacial solar cells (fig. 2 shows the elongated light transmissive optical reflectors are shaped and positioned to transmit light with incident angle 19 to the plurality of planar bifacial solar cells, which implies that he light transmissive optical reflectors are structurally configured or shaped and positioned to perform the claimed function since the angle of direct light originated from the sun changes due to the sun’s motion; when the angle of direct sun light matches the incident angle 19 shown in fig. 2, the direct light is transmitted to the planar bifacial solar cells) and configured to transmit indirect light impinging on the reflector through the apparatus to provide illumination (fig. 2 shows light with incident angles 13 and 16 impinging on the reflector 4 is transmitted through the apparatus to provide illumination; therefore, diffused light, i.e. indirect light, having incident angles that match incident angles 13 and 16 shown in fig. 2 of Paull impinging on the reflector would be transmitted through the apparatus to provide illumination. PNG media_image1.png 308 422 media_image1.png Greyscale Uematsu discloses an optical collection apparatus comprising a plurality of elongated light transmissive (light transmitted through the top surface) prismatic optical reflectors (light reflected off prismatic reflecting surface 2 shown in fig. 22b, which resembles the prismatic surfaces 18 and 218 of current application). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the reflecting surface of Paull with prismatic configuration as disclosed by Uematsu in order to increase the incident angle of light and confine large amount of light in the concentrator thereby increasing the possibility of arrival of the light at the light receiving surface of the solar cells (Uematsu, [0080]). Addressing claim 2, Paull discloses the solar cells are bifacial solar cells, which implies first and second photovoltaic sides. Fig. 2 shows one photovoltaic side of the bifacial solar cell is positioned to receive light with incident angle 19 been reflected by a corresponding one of the at least one elongated light transmissive optical reflector as claimed. Therefore, one of the first or second photovoltaic side of Paull’s bifacial solar cell is positioned to receive direct light having incident angle 19 been reflected by a corresponding one of the at least one elongated light transmissive optical reflector. Addressing claim 3, Paull discloses the solar cells are bifacial solar cells, which implies first and second photovoltaic sides. Fig. 2 shows one photovoltaic side of the bifacial solar cell is positioned to receive light with incident angles 13 and 16 being transmitted to the receiving photovoltaic side, i.e. one of the first photovoltaic side and second photovoltaic side, of the at least one planar bifacial solar cell. Therefore, each of the at least one elongated light transmissive optical reflector is shaped and positioned to transmit indirect light having the incident angles 13 and 16 to at least one of the first and second photovoltaic side of the at least one planar bifacial solar cell. Addressing claim 4, fig. 2 of Paull discloses each of the at least one elongated light transmissive optical reflector is shaped to provide illumination by refraction of incident light impinging thereon at incident angles 13 and 16 and being transmitted therethrough such as to avoid the at least one planar bifacial solar cell; therefore, the at least one elongated light transmissive optical reflector of Paull is configured or shaped to perform the function of providing illumination by refraction of indirect light having the incident angles 13 and 16 impinging thereon and being transmitted therethrough in the claimed manner. Addressing claim 7, Paull discloses the solar cells are bifacial solar cells, which implies first and second photovoltaic sides; the first photovoltaic side of each of the at least one planar bifacial solar cell is positioned to receive direct light having been reflected by a corresponding one of the at least one elongated light transmissive optical reflector (please see the rejection of claim 2 above); and each of the at least one elongated light transmissive optical reflector is shaped to provide illumination by refraction of incident light impinging thereon and being transmitted therethrough such as to avoid the at least one planar bifacial solar cell (please see the rejection of claim 4 above). Addressing claim 8, Paull discloses the solar cells are bifacial solar cells, which implies first and second photovoltaic sides; each of the at least one elongated light transmissive optical reflector is shaped and positioned to transmit indirect light to at least one of the first photovoltaic side and the second photovoltaic side of one of the at least one planar bifacial solar cell (please see the rejection of claim 3 above); and each of the at least one elongated light transmissive optical reflector is shaped to provide illumination by refraction of indirect light impinging thereon and being transmitted therethrough such as to avoid the at least one planar bifacial solar cell (please see the rejection of claim 4 above). Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paull et al. (US 2016/0064588) in view of Uematsu et al. (US 2001/0008144) as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Morgan (US 2014/0261630). Addressing claims 5-6, Paull is silent regarding the claimed single axis tracking system. Morgan discloses an optical collection apparatus that includes elongated prismatic optical reflectors and bifacial solar cell [0011] that are mounted to a single axis tracking system [0042] for performing the claimed function. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the optical collection apparatus of Paull with the solar tracking system including the single axis tracking mechanism disclosed by Morgan in order to increase the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the apparatus by orienting the elongated light transmissive optical reflector and the bifacial solar cells along the sun’s path (Morgan, [0042 and 0063-0064]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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. Conclusion 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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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 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. /BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 03/16/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 19, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595176
PREPARATION METHOD OF LITHIUM IRON PHOSPHATE CATHODE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597882
PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER GENERATION MODULE USING CONDENSING LENS HAVING MEDIUM THEREIN AND PHOTOVOLTAIC/SOLAR HEAT POWER GENERATION SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580517
PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING TILE FOOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570173
Vehicular Electricity Generating Canopy Appliance
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563857
PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICE INCLUDING A P-N JUNCTION AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+32.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 966 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