DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed April 15, 2026.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 15, 2026, the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent September 30, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 15, 2026, the rejections of claims 1-9 and 13-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent September 30, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 10-18 are currently pending.
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, 3, 4, 6-8, and 10-18 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 recite, “a stowed condition in which the reflector faces the base and abuts the support structure”.
The specification, as originally filed, does not evidence applicant had in possession an invention including a stowed condition in which the reflector faces the base and abuts the support structure.
The specification does not depict or describe a stowed condition which the reflector abuts the support structure. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Claim 1 recite, “a transport condition in which the reflector faces laterally away from the base and abuts the support structure”.
The specification, as originally filed, does not evidence applicant had in possession an invention including a transport condition in which the reflector faces laterally away from the base and abuts the support structure.
The specification does not depict or describe a transport condition which the reflector abuts the support structure. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "the actuator" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Amending “the actuator” to “the first actuator” would overcome the rejection.
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, 4, 6, 7, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0179791 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Butler et al. discloses a solar collector arrangement which includes:
a reflector (24, Fig. 1);
a receiver (46, Fig. 1); and
a support arrangement which comprises a base (such as depicted in Fig. 1, a support arrangement which comprises a base 12) and
a support structure (such as depicted in Fig. 1, a support arrangement which comprises a support structure at components 16/92/32/30/82/78/47/86/50/48 as they function to support the cited reflector 24 and cited receiver 46),
the support structure being pivotally connected to the base (as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5-9, the cited support structure is cited to read on the claimed “being pivotally connected to the base” because it includes a portion, at component 50/48 and 30 pivotally connected to the cited base 12) and
the reflector being pivotally connected to the support structure (as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5-9, the cited reflector 24 is cited to read on the claimed “being pivotally connected to the support structure” because it is pivotally connected to a portion of the cited support structure at components 50/48 and 78) such that the support arrangement is configured to permit relative displacement of the reflector and receiver between
an operative condition in which the receiver is spaced away from the reflector and is positioned to receive reflected radiation from the reflector (as depicted in Fig. 1, an operative condition in which the cited receiver 46 is spaced away from the cited reflector 24 and is positioned to receive reflected radiation from the reflector 24);
a stowed condition in which the reflector faces the base and abuts the support structure (a stowed condition, such as depicted in Fig. 5 as the cited solar collector arrangement is structurally capable of being stowed in the arrangement of Fig. 5, in which the cited reflector 24 faces the cited base 12 and abuts the cited support structure at least at component 30); and
a transport condition in which the reflector faces laterally away from the base and abuts the support structure (a transport condition, such as depicted in Fig. 7 as the cited solar collector arrangement is structurally capable of being transported in the arrangement of Fig. 7, in which the cited reflector 24 faces laterally away from the cited base 12 and abuts the support structure at least at component 30).
With regard to claim 3, Butler et al. discloses in which,
in the stowed condition, a wind loading on the solar collector arrangement is less than in the operative condition (as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, in the stowed condition, Fig. 5, a wind loading on the solar collector arrangement is less than in the operative condition, Fig. 1, because the height of the solar collector arrangement is less in the stowed condition and because the orientation of the reflector 24 is parallel to the ground in the stowed condition).
With regard to claim 4, Butler et al. discloses in which
the support arrangement is configured to permit angular displacement of the reflector and receiver relative to one another between the stowed condition, the transport condition and the operative condition (as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 9, the support arrangement permits angular displacement of the cited reflector 24 and receiver relative 26 to one another between the stowed condition, Fig. 5, the transport condition, Fig. 7, and the operative condition, Fig. 1).
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Butler et al. discloses in which
the reflector is pivotally connected by means of a pivotal connection to the support structure for displacement relative to the support structure about a first pivot axis between the operative and stowed conditions (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 depicting the cited reflector 24 pivotally connected by means of a pivotal connection to the cited support structure at least at components 50/48/78 for displacement about a first pivot axis at axle 20 between the cited operative and stowed conditions), in which the support arrangement includes
a first actuator whereby the reflector is displaceable relative to the support structure between its operative and stowed conditions (first actuator 66, Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 depicted as displacing the cited reflector 24 relative to the cited support structure at least at components 50/48/78 between the cited operative and stowed conditions).
With regard to claim 13, Butler et al. discloses in which
the reflector is of composite construction and comprises a plurality of reflector elements (as depicted in Fig. 1, the cited reflector 24 is of composite construction and comprises a plurality of reflector elements 42).
With regard to claim 14, Butler et al. discloses in which
each of at least some of the reflector elements is parabolic in shape and has a focal point which is coincident with the receiver when the reflector is in its operative condition (see [0094]).
With regard to claim 15, Butler et al. discloses in which
the receiver is configured to heat a fluid, the receiver including an inlet for receiving fluid to be heated and an outlet which is in fluid communication with the inlet, and through which heated fluid can be discharged from the receiver, in use (see Fig. 1 depicting the cited receiver 26 heating a fluid, the receiver including an inlet at 48 for receiving fluid to be heated and an outlet at 50 which is in fluid communication with the inlet, and through which heated fluid can be discharged from the receiver, in use; see [0042-0043]).
With regard to claim 16, Butler et al. discloses in which
the receiver is configured to heat a solid (as depicted in Fig. 1, the cited receiver 26 heats a solid, the solid components of 46/52).
With regard to claim 17, Butler et al. discloses a solar assembly which includes:
a mobile platform (116, Fig. 10); and
a solar collector arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above)
which is mounted on the mobile platform for displacement from one location to another (see Fig. 10).
With regard to claim 18, Butler et al. discloses in which
the mobile platform is in the form of a trailer which is disconnectably connectable to a draught vehicle (see 116, Fig. 10).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0179791 A1) in view of Osterwisch (U.S. Patent No. 5,758,938).
With regard to claim 8, dependent claim 7 is anticipated by Butler et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Butler et al. discloses an actuator (recall 66, Fig. 1) but does not disclose wherein the actuator includes a pressurized fluid operated piston and cylinder assembly.
However, Osterwisch discloses a solar collector arrangement (see Title and Abstract) and teaches an actuator can include a hydraulic cylinder (see line 44-50, column 5).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the hydraulic cylinder type actuator exemplified by Osterwisch for the actuator type of Butler et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function support a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10, from which claims 11 and 12 depend, requires a solar collector arrangement comprising a reflector, a receiver, a support arrangement comprising a base and a support structure, the support structure being pivotally connected to the base and the reflector being pivotally connected to the support structure, an operation condition, a stored condition, and a transport condition, the support arrangement configured to permit angular displacement of the reflector and receiver relative to one another between the stowed condition, the transport condition, and the operative conduction, the reflector pivotally connected to the support structure for displacement relative to the support structure about a first axis between the operative and stowed conditions, a first actuator whereby the reflector is displaced relative to the support structure, the support structure is pivotally mounted on the base for angular displacement relative to the base about a second pivot axis by means of a second actuator, and in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 10.
The prior art, Butler et al. of record, teaches a solar collector arrangement comprising a reflector 24, a receiver 46, a support arrangement comprising a base 12 and a support structure, the support structure being pivotally connected to the base and the reflector being pivotally connected to the support structure, an operation condition, a stored condition, and a transport condition (recall Fig. 1, Fig. 5, and Fig. 7) but does not disclose the support structure is pivotally mounted on the base for angular displacement relative to the base about a second pivot axis by means of a second actuator, and in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 10 and it would not have been an obvious modification.
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 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights