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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claims 1-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 17-20 in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Currently, claims 17-36 are pending.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Linderman (US Pub No. 2016/0261229)
Regarding Claim 17, Linderman et al. teaches an apparatus [100, Fig. 1, 0016] comprising:
one or more photovoltaic faces [The solar panel in the shape of a rectangle, so all 6 sides are the faces of solar panel 180, Fig. 3, 0017];
one or more power converters [104, Fig. 1, 0016-0017] in electrical communication with the one or more photovoltaic faces [0016, The power conditioner 104 comprises a module level power electronics (MPLE) enclosure encasing power electronics that are electronically coupled to the DC output from the PV module 102, for example via a cable connector 192 of the power conditioner 104.];
a controller [606, Fig. 6, 0045] configured to control power flow through the one or more power converters [0045, i.e. power line communication]; and
a plurality of connective edge faces [See sides of 192 and 194, the area of the connection of each 192 and 194, Fig. 1, 0016-0018] comprising a panel connection interface in electrical communication [0016, 192 and 194 are cable connectors]
with the one or more power converters [0016], the panel connection interface configured to be releasable and to output power to one or more power loads [192 and 194 are used to output power, 0016, and eventually to a power grid, 0046].
Regarding Claim 19, Linderman et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Linderman et al. teaches wherein the panel connection interface comprises a data connection in electrical communication with the controller, the controller configured to communicate with one or more devices using the data connection [0045].
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) 18, and 21-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linderman (US Pub No. 2016/0261229) in view of Gostein (US Pub No. 2022/0360216)
Regarding Claim 18, Linderman et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Linderman et al. is silent on further comprising a variable load module in electrical communication with the controller, the variable load module configured to introduce the one or more power loads to the panel connection interface and to test a power output capability.
Gostein et al. teaches a variable load module [250, Fig. 2A, 0045] connected to a controller [300, Fig. 2A, 0045] for a pv module [Fig. 2A, 0045]. The use of the variable load module is used to assess and monitor the performance of the pv module [0035-0036].
Since Linderman et al. teaches the use of a pv module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the variable load module and controller of Gostein et al. to the pv module of Linderman et al. in order to monitor the performance of the pv module [0035-0036].
Regarding Claim 21, the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a variable load module in electrical communication with the controller, the variable load module configured to introduce one or more test loads to the panel connection interface to determine a power output capability of the apparatus [Gostein: 0035-0038]
Regarding Claim 22, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the variable load module is configured to apply a plurality of discrete test loads to characterize performance of the one or more photovoltaic faces [Gostein: 0035-0038].
Regarding Claim 23, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the variable load module is configured to determine at least two points of an I-V curve of the one or more photovoltaic faces [Gostein:0035-0038].
Regarding Claim 24, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the controller is configured to use results obtained from the variable load module to estimate an expected maximum power point prior to supplying power to an external load [Gostein:0035-0038].
Regarding Claim 25, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the variable load module is configured to adjust its applied test loads based on at least one of a temperature measurement or an irradiance measurement associated with the apparatus [Gostein:0035-0038, 0044].
Regarding Claim 26, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a microcontroller configured to autonomously control panel-level power routing [Gostein:0060]
Regarding Claim 27, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches within the combination above, modified Lindermann et al. teaches wherein the microcontroller includes a panel-specific maximum power point tracking engine configured to control a variable load module [Gostein:0035-0038, 0044].
Regarding Claim 28, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches further comprising nonvolatile memory configured to store diagnostic or performance values associated with operation of the apparatus [Gostein: 0060, 0092-0093, 0023]
Regarding Claim 29, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the controller is configured to activate the variable load module in response to detecting an operational anomaly associated with the one or more photovoltaic faces [Gostein: 0060, 0092-0093, 0023]
Regarding Claim 30, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to wirelessly transmit diagnostic information obtained from the variable load module to an external device [Gostein:0092]
Regarding Claim 31, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the apparatus is further configured to form a short-range mesh network with at least one adjacent photovoltaic apparatus [Gostein:0092]
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linderman (US Pub No. 2016/0261229) in view of Tao (US Pub No. 2023/0387690) and Sachs (US Pub No. 2020/0176997)
Regarding Claim 20, Linderman et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Linderman et al. is silent on further comprising a plurality of power switches located electrically between the panel connection interface and the one or more power converters and in electrical communication with the controller, the plurality of power switches configured to electrically isolate the panel connection interface from the one or more power converters.
Tao et al. teaches the use a pv module which comprises a plurality of switches [108, Fig. 1, 0059]
Sachs et al. teaches a transfer switch connected to serval points a power switch [269, Fig. 2C, 0079] used to supply load from either the grid or inverter [0079].
Since Linderman et al. teaches a pv system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to provide the system of Linderman et al. with the power switch of Sachs et al. in order to supply load from with the external grid or inverter [0079]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to provide additional switches to the system of modified Linderman et al. as taught by Tao et al. as it 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) 32-33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linderman (US Pub No. 2016/0261229) in view of Veidung (US Pub No. 2020/0203895)
Regarding Claim 32, Linderman et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Linderman et al. is silent on wherein the panel connection interface comprises both a male interface and a female interface configured for mechanical and electrical coupling with another photovoltaic apparatus.
Veidung et al. teaches a connection comprising a male and female interface where the connection is attached magnetically [Fig. 2C, 0066-0068].
Since Linderman et al. teaches a connection interface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the connection interface of Linderman et al.s with the connections of Veidung et al. as it is merely the selection of 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 33, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches wherein the panel connection interface further comprises a magnetic alignment feature configured to guide attachment between adjacent photovoltaic apparatuses [Veidung: Fig. 2C, 0066-0068]
Regarding Claim 35, within the combination above, modified Linderman et al. teaches further comprising a flexible electrical coupling configured to maintain electrical continuity during mechanical repositioning of the apparatus [Veidung: Fig. 2C, 0066-0068]
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linderman (US Pub No. 2016/0261229) in view of Edgar (US Pub No. 2011/0056540)
Regarding Claim 34, Linderman et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Linderman et al. is silent on wherein the one or more photovoltaic faces comprise a non-
rectilinear geometry selected from triangular, trapezoidal, or polygonal shapes.
Edgar et al. teaches a pv module with a shape of a rectangle or a triangle [0011]
Since Linderman et al. teaches a pv module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the pv panel shape of Linderman et al. to be a triangle as taught by Edgar et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linderman (US Pub No. 2016/0261229) in view of Gostein (US Pub No. 2022/0360216) and Wenzel (US Pub No. 2017/0102434)
Regarding Claim 36, Linderman et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Linderman et al. is silent on further comprising a tilt sensor or orientation sensor configured to adjust diagnostic results generated by the variable load module based on a detected tilt or orientation of the apparatus.
Gostein et al. teaches a variable load module [250, Fig. 2A, 0045] connected to a controller [300, Fig. 2A, 0045] for a pv module [Fig. 2A, 0045]. The use of the variable load module is used to assess and monitor the performance of the pv module [0035-0036].
Since Linderman et al. teaches the use of a pv module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the variable load module and controller of Gostein et al. to the pv module of Linderman et al. in order to monitor the performance of the pv module [0035-0036].
Wenzel et al. teaches a orientation sensor connected to a controller of a pv module [0213].
Since Linderman et al. teaches a pv system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the sensor of Wenzel et al. in the system of Linderman et al. as it merely the selection of 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.).
Conclusion
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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