DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/842,998, filed on 08/30/2024, which claims foreign priority to EP22160030.7, filed on 03/03/2022, and which is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/078300, filed on 10/11/2022.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 11/10/2025.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, and 24-29 in the reply received on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. The applicant traverses the restriction asserting that the prior art does not read on amended claim 1. The applicant’s remarks are not compelling because the examiner cites new prior art that also teaches each aspect of the shared technical feature of claim 1, from which the other group ultimately depends. Accordingly, the examiner withdraws claims 26-29 as they are directed to a non-elected group. The restriction requirement is made final.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, and 24-29 are currently pending.
Claims 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 19, 22, and 23 are canceled.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 25-27, and 29 are amended.
Claims 26-29 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art references reviewed do not teach or suggest the recited features of these dependent claims.
The applicant may also consider amending claim 1 so that the first end and the second ends are required to be extensional perpendicular to the retracting direction.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 7, 12, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARP (WO 2021/108636 A1) in view of IWAI (WO 2017/022356 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HARP teaches an optomechanical system for light regulation and electricity production, the optomechanical system comprising:
a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of bifacial photovoltaic cells arranged in rows and columns (bifacial solar modules 14 arranged in a number of rows/columns, Figs. 3A/3B, see also Figs. 1 and 8),
an optical arrangement (albedo reflectors 30) located in an actuation plane behind the semi-transparent photovoltaic module, the optical arrangement comprising a reflective optical element having a reflective surface adapted to redirect at least part of the transmitted sunlight towards a back side of the semi-transparent photovoltaic module opposed to said front side (para. 37: “Albedo reflectors 30 can enhance the amount of solar energy received by the bottom photovoltaic sides 22 of bifacial solar modules 14 and/or optimize the amount of power output produced by the bottom photovoltaic sides”), and
a control system configured to operate the optical arrangement to adjust a projected area of said reflective optical element on said actuation plane (albedo drives 32 or linear actuators 92, e.g., para. 53),
wherein said optical arrangement comprises a deformable curtain comprising said reflective optical element para. 53: “reflector 30 includes flexible reflective material 84”), and the control system is configured to reversibly at least partially retract or deploy said deformable curtain in a retracting direction parallel to the actuation plane (para. 53: “linear actuators 92 can be driven to extended positions that tension the reflective material 84 into a generally flat and planar shape configuration”), and
wherein both a first end and a second end of the deformable curtain are movable in the retracting direction (see how the examiner interprets the first and second ends in annotated Fig. 6, as the ends extending in a direction parallel to the retracting direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
1001
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
589
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
HARP does not disclose expressly that there are gaps between each of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic cells, thus forming a “semi-transparent” module.
IWAI teaches gaps between each of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic cells, thus forming a “semi-transparent” module (gaps between columns of cells 52 forming light transmitting regions A, see Fig. 2). IWAI explains that by adding the gaps and forming the light transmitting regions A, that crops can be cultivated beneath the photovoltaic module.
PNG
media_image3.png
422
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify HARP and add gaps between each of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic cells, thus forming a “semi-transparent” module so that crops can be cultivated beneath the photovoltaic module as taught by IWAI.
Regarding claim 7, modified HARP teaches the optomechanical system according to claim 1, wherein both ends of said curtain are individually movable in the retracting direction (HARP, Fig. 6 illustrates that the actuators 92 are not fixedly linked so as to not be capable of operating and movably individually and independently, thus the recitation is satisfied).
Regarding claim 12, modified HARP teaches the optomechanical system according to claim 1, wherein the deformable curtain is at least partially formed of a sheet having an upper surface comprising reflective material (HARP, para. 46: “single and multilayer structures” with material to provide the reflecting functionality; Fig. 6 illustrates the reflective material 84 is on an upper/top surface).
Regarding claim 20, modified HARP teaches the optomechanical system according to claim 1, wherein said reflective optical element comprises at least two adjacent planar angle-forming faces (HARP, para. 47 suggests that the shape and orientation of the reflectors can be optimized for the operational capabilities of the solar modules, and includes specific examples comprising at least two adjacent planar angle-forming faces, such as Figs. 2E, 2H, and 2I; the examiner concludes it is obvious to adjust the shape according HARP’s express teachings, and the applicant does not report any unexpected or superior results for any specific shape).
Regarding claim 21, modified HARP teaches the optomechanical system according to claim 1, wherein said reflective optical element has a spectrally selective reflectivity and/or transmission (HARP, para. 7, explains that the reflector may include wavelength shifting material configured only for a “first wavelength range”).
Regarding claim 24, modified HARP teaches the optomechanical system according to claim 1, wherein the control system comprises a sensor and a computer system configured to receive a signal provided by the sensor and to control the optical arrangement based on such signal, according to a feedback loop (HARP, paras. 39-40 explain that sensors and computer systems are configured to connect together to generate the drive signals to operate the deformable curtain movement actuators).
Regarding claim 25, modified HARP teaches an agricultural installation comprising a supporting structure arranged above crops and the optomechanical system according to claim 1 attached to said supporting structure (IWAI teaches that benefits include the ability to cultivate crops within a supporting structure).
PNG
media_image4.png
490
579
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner