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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 directed to a solar panel apparatus, in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant believes there is no serious burden in search and examination the entire application. This is not found persuasive because the inventions, e.g. an apparatus and a method, do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 as explained in paragraph 2 of the Requirement for Restriction/Election 12/17/2025. The examiner is burdened to search both relevant patent and patent applications as well as non-patent literature in the examination of the claims. Burden consists not only of specific searching of classes and subclasses, but also of searching multiple databases for foreign references and literature searches. Burden also resides in the examination of independent claim sets for clarity, enablement and double patenting issues. Furthermore, it is noted that the search for the apparatus of group I is not required for how a solar panel apparatus is assembled in the method of group II; and the apparatus in group I can be assembled by different method from the method in group II such as connecting the solar panel petals to the fulcrum, and then connect the assembly of the petals and fulcrums to a central pole,
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of solar panel pedals" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the plurality of solar panel pedals” recited in line 5 is the same as or different from “a plurality of solar panel petals” recited in line 4.
Claims 2-14 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chentnik et al. (US 2020/0343852, Cite No. 1 in U.S Patent Application Publications of IDS 8/30/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Chentnik et al. discloses a solar panel apparatus comprising:
a central pole (11, figs. 1 and 14);
a sun-tracking fulcrum (see components around the central pole such as collar 15 and mounting adapter 13, frame assembly 130, and motors 132/133, fig. 14) connected to the central pole (11, see fig. 14, also see fig. 12 and 13); and
a plurality of solar panel petals (see solar panels 14, figs. 1 and 14) connected to the fulcrum (130/132/133/15 and 13), wherein the fulcrum (motors 132 and 133) both rotates and tilts the plurality of solar panel pedals with respect to a location of the sun (or rotate and tilt about the z and y axis to improve sunlight collection by tracking the path of the sun, see fig. 14 and [0138]; also see [0133-0137]).
Chentnik et al. discloses partially rotating about z axis so that the solar panel petals (14) can fold down or up to collect more sun light at certain times of the day by a motor (133), and about y axes to improve collection of sunlight at certain times of the day in paragraph by a motor (132, see [0138]), and teaches improving collection of sunlight by tracking the sun angle in paragraphs [0133-0137]. Chentnik et al. shows the solar panel petals (14) are tilted in fig. 4. As such, the solar panel petals (14) of Chentnik et al. are rotated and tilted with respect to a location of the sun by the motors (132 and 133) of the fulcrum (130/132/133/15), and the reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Alternatively, Chentnik et al. does not disclose verbatim “the fulcrum both rotates and tilts the plurality of solar panel petals with respect to a location of the sun”. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the fulcrum, or more specifically the motors of the fulcrum of Chentnik et al., both rotating the tilting the plurality of solar panel petals with respect to a location of the sun; because Chentnik et al. discloses the motors of the fulcrum (130/132/133/15) rotating (in paragraphs [0138]) and shows tilting (in fig. 14) the solar panel petals (14) to improve the collection of sunlight by tracking the sun angle.
Regarding claim 2, Chentnik et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches each petal of the plurality of solar panel petals to be an isosceles trapezoid and having curved surfaces (see [0112]). As such, that is curved from a shorter base to a longer base and is connected to the fulcrum at the shorter base.
Regarding claim 3, Chentnik et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches each petal of the plurality of solar panel petals comprises a top transparent and protective layer (e.g.top transparent glass or glazing type material), a central solar photovoltaic layer (e.g. semiconductor cells), and a lower structural layer (e.g. bottom transparent glass or glazing type material, see [0112-0113]).
Regarding claim 4, Chentnik et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 3 above, and teaches the lower structural layer comprises a bottom transparent glass, or a single layer having a single (lower) surface.
Regarding claim 8, Chentnik et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches the plurality of solar panel petals (14) is connected to the fulcrum (15) through a central joining piece (frame assembly 130, see fig. 14).
Regarding claim 11, Chentnik et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches the fulcrum comprises an axis rotation system (or motors 132 and 133) where horizontal axis rotation (or motor 132 for rotating about z axis) occurs in the fulcrum between an element (see frame assembly 130) connecting to a petal (14) of the plurality of solar panel petals (collar 15) and an element connecting to a vertical axis system (or motor 133 for rotating about y axis, see fig. 14).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chentnik et al. (US 2020/0343852) as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Tueshaus et al. (US 2005/0014429).
Regarding claims 5-7, Chentnik et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 3 above, and teaches the lower structural layer (or the bottom structure) to be glass or other transparent glazing type materials (see [0112]).
Chentnik et al. does not explicitly the lower structural layer comprises two surfaces sandwiching a structural element such that the structural element comprises a set of multiple cross sections arranged parallel to each other to comprises a network of metal tubes welded together.
Tueshaus et al. discloses a transparent glazing type material comprising two surfaces (see transparent panel 14 and 16, figs. 1-5 and more specifically fig. 3) sandwiching a structural element (wire mesh 12, figs. 1-5 and more specifically fig. 3), wherein the structural element (or wire mesh 12) comprises a set of multiple cross sections arranged parallel to each other, and comprising a network of metal tubes (e.g. or wires 20A/B, 22A/B, 24A/B, 26A/B, 28A/B, 30A/B, 32A/B, 34A, figs. 1-2, also see figs. 3-5, [0029]). Tueshaus et al. also teaches the metal tubes (or wire) are welded together ([0062], [0068], claim 22).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chentnik et al. by using the transparent glazing type material (or transparent panel) comprising two surfaces sandwiching a structure element (or wire mesh comprising a set of multiple cross sections arranged parallel together and also comprising a network of metal tubes (or wires) weld together as taught by Tueshaus; because Chentnik et al. explicitly suggests using transparent glazing type materials, and Tueshaus teaches such glazing material would provide an improved panel with decorative metallic reinforcement as well as the means for selectively controlling light reflected by, passing through, or diffused in the translucent or transparent material (see [0023-0024] of Tueshaus).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Liao (US 2011/0041834).
Regarding claims 9-10, Chentnik et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 1 above, and teaches the fulcrum including motors (132 and 133) to provide an axis rotation system where the vertical axis rotation (or y axis rotation) and horizontal axis rotation (or z axis rotation) are done by the motors (132 and 133, [0134])
Chentnik et al. does not explicitly discloses the axis rotations are done by slewing drives and using two double or single ball or roller bearings.
Liao teaches an axis rotation system including a stepping motor (43) coupled with the worm drive (42), wherein the worm drive is used mostly in existing two-axes tracker slewing drive packed together with the azimuth rotating ball bearing ([0043]) to achieve desired rotation resolution without changing the gear ring teeth number for smoother rotation with slanted gear teeth ([0043-0044]) or for simplicity and lower cost, and removing the problem of corrosion, rain, and dust cover, maintenance and lubrication ([0045-0046]). Liao teaches using roller bearing so that the rotation head can be rotated faster with less friction and enable the usage of lower cost bushings ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chentnik et al. by using the motors each coupled with worm drive of slewing drive and ball bearing to achieve desired rotation resolution without changing the gear ring teeth number for smoother rotation or for simplicity, lower cost and free of problems of corrosion, rain, dust cover, maintenance and lubrication as taught by Liao. In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have used roller bearing for rotating faster and less friction to enable the usage of lower cost bushings as taught by Liao.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Sangalli, Jr. (US Patent 5,422,801)
Regarding claims 12-14, Chentnik et al. discloses an apparatus as in claim 11 above, and teaches the mounting adapter (13) of the fulcrum (130/132/133/15 and 13) for mounting a lighting device (12, see fig. 1 and [0093]). Chentnik et al. also teaches designing to apparatus (or the assembly) for artistic application such as trees to increase aesthetic appeal ([0053]).
Chentnik et al. does not explicitly fulcrum comprises a ring housing that encloses the axis rotation system such that the ring housing comprises a top ring of lights to illuminate the bottom of the plurality of solar panel petals and a bottom ring of lights to illuminate the central pole.
Sangalli, Jr. discloses a tree light comprising a ring housing that encloses a tree branch layer such that the ring house comprising a top ring of lights (see lighting ring 13 on top of the tree branch layer, fig. 1; also see figs. 2-6) and a bottom ring of lights (see lighting ring 13 below the tree branch layer, fig. 1, also see figs. 2-6).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chentnik et al. by incorporating a ring housing enclosing the axis rotation system (or the tree branch layer of collar 15/motors 132 and 133/solar panels 14) such that the ring housing comprising a top ring of light to illuminate the solar panel petals and a bottom ring of lights to illuminate the central pole to the fulcrum as taught by Sangalli, Jr.; because Chentnik et al. explicitly suggests incorporating lighting and designing the apparatus (or the assembly) for artistic application such as trees to increase aesthetic appeal, and Sangalli, Jr. teaches incorporating the rings of light would provide additional lighting and visual effects, and enhanced lighting relative to the Christmas tree in use (see col. 1; lines 23-37 of Sangalli, Jr.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726