DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed December 30, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed December 30, 2025, the rejections of claims 7, 9, 10, 16, 21, 23, 26-28, 32, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent September 30, 2025 have been withdrawn.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 December 30, 2025, the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 21, 23, 26-28, 32, and 35 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, 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 21, 23, 26-28, 32, and 35 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 32 recites, “and a states of the hollow bodies” which grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Amending “and a states of the hollow bodies” to “and states of the hollow bodies” would overcome the objection.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 32 recites, “a system states and conditions” which grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Amending “a system states and conditions” to “system states and conditions” would overcome the objection.
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) 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 21, 23, 26-28, 32, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tehan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0278201 A1) in view of Hingley (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0230882 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 14, and 23, Tehan et al. discloses solar plant with
solar panels (61-68, Fig. 7) which are arranged in
a leporello folding (as depicted in Fig. 7, the cited solar panels 61-68 arranged in a leporello folding)
which can be unfolded in an unfolding direction (A) (as depicted in Fig. 7, the cited solar panels 61-68 can be unfolded in an unfolding direction (A)), and
a substructure on which the solar panels are arranged (as depicted in Fig. 7, a substructure 77 on which the cited solar panels 61-68 are arranged), characterized in that
the substructure is designed to be flexible in the unfolding direction (A) (as depicted in Fig. 7, the cited substructure 77 is designed to be flexible in the unfolding direction (A)) and
is connected to the solar panels in a positionally fixed manner such that the leporello folding of the solar panels can be unfolded with the substructure (as depicted in Fig. 7, the cited substructure 77 is connected to the cited solar panels 61-68 in a positionally fixed manner such that the leporello folding of the solar panels can be unfolded with the substructure 77) and
determines an angular positions of the solar panels relative to one another in an unfolded state (as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7, the cited substructure 77 determines an angular positions of the solar panels 61-68 relative to one another in an unfolded state).
Tehan et al. does not disclose wherein the substructure, in the unfolded state, has at least one flexible hollow body which extends in the deployment direction and can be filled with a medium.
However, Hingley discloses a solar power plant (see Title and Abstract) and teaches, in a deployed state, a substructure having at least one flexible hollow body (see [0053] teaching “inflatable support frame”) which extends in the deployment direction and can be filled with a medium (see Fig. 14 and see [0056]). Hingley et al. discloses one or a row of hollow bodies are provided side by side in the deployment direction (see Fig. 14). Hingley et al. discloses hollow bodies are interchangeably arranged on the solar panels (see Fig. 14).
Hingley et al. teaches the flexible hollow body design allows for improved resilience against damage and improves cooling of the array through airflow (see [0055]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the substructure of Tehan et al. to include the hollow body design of Hingley et al. because it would have provided for improved resilience against damage and improved cooling of the array through airflow.
With regard to claim 2, independent claim 1 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Tehan et al. discloses in that
the leporello folding of the solar panels can be automatically unfolded with the substructure (the cited leporello folding of the solar panels 61-68 are cited to read on the claimed “can be automatically unfolded with the substructure” because they are structurally capable of being automatically unfolded with the cited substructure as the unfolding of the cited substructure 77 will automatically unfold the corresponding attached solar panels).
With regard to claim 7, independent claim 1 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Tehan et al., as modified above, discloses in that
the at least one flexible hollow body filled with a medium generate sufficient buoyancy to hold the solar panels above a water surface of a body of water in which the solar plant floats (the cited flexible hollow bodies, recall Hingley et al., are cited to read on the claimed “filled with a medium generate sufficient buoyancy to hold the solar panels above a water surface of a body of water in which the solar plant floats” because they are structurally capable of being filled with a medium generating sufficient buoyancy to hold the solar panels above a water surface of a body of water in which the solar plant floats as Hingley et al. teaches the flexible hollow bodies are filled with pumped air, see Fig. 14 and [0055-0056]).
With regard to claim 9, independent claim 1 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Hingley et al. discloses in that
the at least one flexible hollow body which can be filled with a medium has a plurality of hoses which are arranged next to one another transversely to the deployment direction (A) and each extend in the deployment direction (A) (see [0055] teaching a series of separate chambers spaced from one another along the length of the solar array structure; see [0056] teaching pumping air via pumps, valves, and hoses/pneumatic lines which would provide for arrangement next to one and extending in the deployment, also see Fig. 14).
With regard to claim 10, independent claim 1 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Hingley et al. discloses in that
the at least one flexible hollow body can be permanently filled with foam (the cited at least one flexible hollow body of Hingley et al. are cited to read on the claimed “can be permanently filled with foam” because they are structurally capable of being permanently filled with foam because they include a hollow space that allows for permanent fill of material).
With regard to claim 16, independent claim 1 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Tehan et al. discloses in that
the leporello folding is folded in a transport state and sections of at least one flexible hollow body arranged between two adjacent solar panels are arranged between the two folded adjacent solar panels (see, for example, Fig. 2 and Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 21, independent claim 1 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Hingley et al. discloses in that
at least one pump permanently remaining with the solar plant is provided, which enables the at least one flexible hollow body to be filled or emptied with gas (see [0056]).
With regard to claim 26, Tehan et al. discloses method for assembling a solar plant with solar panels arranged in a leporello folding by
moving the folded solar plant to a location (see, for example, Fig. 2),
a substructure flexibly connected to the solar panels in a fixed position in one unfolding direction is pulled out and the leporello folding unfolds and the angular positions of the solar panels relative to one another are determined (see, for example, Fig. 7 depicting a substructure 77 flexibly connected to the solar panels 61-68 in a fixed position in one unfolding direction is pulled out and the leporello folding unfolds and the angular positions of the solar panels relative to one another are determined).
Tehan et al. does not disclose wherein the substructure, in the unfolded state, has at least one flexible hollow body which extends in the deployment direction and can be filled with a medium.
However, Hingley discloses a solar power plant (see Title and Abstract) and teaches, in a deployed state, a substructure having at least one flexible hollow body (see [0053] teaching “inflatable support frame”) which extends in the deployment direction and can be filled with a medium (see Fig. 14 and see [0056]). Hingley et al. discloses one or a row of hollow bodies are provided side by side in the deployment direction (see Fig. 14). Hingley et al. discloses hollow bodies are interchangeably arranged on the solar panels (see Fig. 14).
Hingley et al. teaches the flexible hollow body design allows for improved resilience against damage and improves cooling of the array through airflow (see [0055]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the substructure of Tehan et al. to include the hollow body design of Hingley et al. because it would have provided for improved resilience against damage and improved cooling of the array through airflow.
With regard to claim 27, independent claim 26 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Tehan et al. discloses in that
the leporello folding is automatically unfolded by unfolding the substructure (the cited leporello folding of the solar panels 61-68 are cited to read on the claimed “is automatically unfolded by unfolding the substructure” because the unfolding of the cited substructure 77 will automatically unfold the leporello folding and corresponding attached solar panels).
With regard to claim 28, independent claim 26 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Tehan et al., as modified by Hingley et al. above, teaches hollow bodies along the length of the solar array would include a leading and a trailing body in the unfolding direction (recall Hingley et al. at [0055-0056]) but does not teach filling the leading hollow body first and then the trailing body.
However, filling the leading hollow body before the trailing body is one in a finite number of immediately recognizable options, finite options being before, after, or during.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tried filling the leading hollow body first because it is one in a finite number of options within the technical grasp of a skilled artesian (see MPEP 2143 E).
With regard to claim 32, independent claim 26 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Hingley et al. discloses in that
physical state variables and/or a chemistry are permanently measured in hollow bodies filled with gas, foam or liquid and a states of the hollow bodies are determined from measured values and an alarm signal is emitted in an event of an algorithmically determined fault or significant ageing and a system states and conditions are continuously documented (see [0056] teaching air pressure; see [0103]).
With regard to claim 35, independent claim 26 is obvious over Tehan et al. in view of Hingley et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Hingley et al. discloses in that
electricity yields and yield-relevant ambient parameters, namely as radiation intensity and/or module temperatures and/or wind are measured continuously a current system efficiency is determined algorithmically from the measured values and an alarm signal is output in the event of determined low system efficiency or other system faults and this data is documented continuously (see [0102-0103]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that since the unfolding principles of Tehan et al. and Hingley are completely different in operation, the combination is not obvious.
However, this argument is not persuasive. The rejections of the claims do not allege or rely on the unfolding principles of Tehan et al. and Hingley to not be completely different in operation.
Applicant argues the inflatable support frame of Hingley does not extend in the unfolding direction.
However, this argument is not persuasive. The cited inflatable support frame of Hingley extends, or has a dimension stretching in the direction of, deployment.
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 March 18, 2026