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 .
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 1-6 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. Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitation "the overturning moment substantially near the solar zenith" in lines 39 and 40, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chekired et al. (“Energy yield evaluation of a rainwater harvesting system using a novel agrophotovoltaics design”) in view of Agrawal et al. (US 2022/0151163).
Regarding claim 7, Chekired discloses a system of photovoltaic solar panels (Fig.
4), comprising a plurality of photovoltaic solar panels (Figures 2 and 4) each including a plurality of photovoltaic solar cells (lines 3 and 4 of bottom paragraph of left column on page 29) and intended to be arranged in parallel and spaced rows (Fig. 4) in an open field (Fig. 1), so as to make possible an agricultural use of areas of the field between said rows (Fig. 1), wherein each photovoltaic solar panel has a planar configuration (Figures 2 and 4) and is carried by a support structure (Fig. 2), wherein for each row of photovoltaic solar panels, two series of photovoltaic solar panels are provided (Figures 2 and 4), arranged in two planes forming a V-shape (Figures 2 and 4), wherein the two series of photovoltaic solar panels arranged in the V-shape have faces facing towards each other (Figures 2 and 4)
While Chekired does disclose the optimal tilt angle for a standard south facing system in Khemis Miliana was 32°, and a tilt angle of between 10° and 20° was expected to be sufficient to allow effective runoff of rainwater from the module surface to the rain gutter and have limited module to module shading (first full paragraph of right column on page 31); Chekired does not explicitly disclose the photovoltaic solar panels form a first angle between them which is never greater than 60° and which has a bisector inclined with respect to a vertical plane parallel to a direction of the row by a second angle which is never greater than 60°.
As the agricultural production efficiency (rainwater collected) and the photovoltaic power production efficiency (photovoltaic yield) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said first and second angles, the precise values for the first and second angles would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed values for the first and second angles cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the values for the first and second angles in the apparatus of Chekired to obtain the desired balance between the agricultural production efficiency (rainwater collected) and the photovoltaic power production efficiency (photovoltaic yield) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Modified Chekired does not explicitly disclose the two series of photovoltaic solar panels arranged in the V-shape have faces carrying respective arrays of double-sided photovoltaic solar cells.
Agrawal discloses a system of photovoltaic solar panels (Fig. 4; [0036]) and further discloses the use of arrays of double-sided photovoltaic solar cells ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use double-sided photovoltaic solar cells, as disclosed by Agrawal, in the photovoltaic solar panels of modified Chekired, because as taught by Agrawal, sunlight is collected from both front and back surfaces of the module, it collects both reflected direct and diffused sunlight from the back surface and can potentially provide more electricity than the corresponding monofacial solar module ([0048]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitations “intended to be arranged in parallel and spaced rows in an open field,” “so as to make possible an agricultural use of areas of the field between said rows,” “configured to rotate a photovoltaic solar panel of the plurality of photovoltaic solar panels during an apparent diurnal motion of the sun,” and “so that said photovoltaic solar cells exploit both direct solar radiation and diffuse solar radiation, and solar radiation reflected between said faces of the two series of photovoltaic solar panels,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 8, modified Chekired discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chekired does not explicitly disclose a tracking device.
Agrawal discloses a system of photovoltaic solar panels (Fig. 4; [0036]) and further discloses a tracking device ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a tracking device, as disclosed by Agrawal, in the apparatus of modified Chekired, because as taught by Agrawal, the advantage of a tracking system is that they cast a dynamic shadow that moves throughout the day and the shadow can be manipulated ([0034]).
Modified Chekired discloses the tracking device includes a controller (Agrawal - [0054]) and an actuator (Agrawal – [0054] discloses at least one motor 30 operationally connected to the plurality of elongated bifacial solar panels 25, wherein the motor 30 may be energized to pivot the plurality of elongated bifacial solar panels 25 about major axis 23), the controller configured to control the actuator (Agrawal – [0054]).
With regard to the limitation “the controller configured to control the actuator to rotate simultaneously and identically the two series of photovoltaic solar panels arranged in the V-shape during the apparent diurnal motion of the sun,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 9, modified Chekired discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chekired does not explicitly disclose the system comprises a tracking device.
Agrawal discloses a system of photovoltaic solar panels (Fig. 4; [0036]) and further discloses a tracking device ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a tracking device, as disclosed by Agrawal, in the apparatus of modified Chekired, because as taught by Agrawal, the advantage of a tracking system is that they cast a dynamic shadow that moves throughout the day and the shadow can be manipulated ([0034]).
Modified Chekired discloses the tracking device includes a controller (Agrawal - [0054]) and an actuator (Agrawal – [0054] discloses at least one motor 30 operationally connected to the plurality of elongated bifacial solar panels 25, wherein the motor 30 may be energized to pivot the plurality of elongated bifacial solar panels 25 about major axis 23), the controller configured to control the actuator (Agrawal – [0054]).
With regard to the limitation “configured to rotate the two series of photovoltaic solar panels arranged in the V-shape during the apparent diurnal motion of the sun independently of each other, around two axes coincident with each other or parallel and spaced apart,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 10, modified Chekired discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chekired further discloses a flat reflective surface (Chekired - bottom surface of rainwater gutter depicted in Fig. 2; note: the surface of the disclosed gutter is necessarily reflective, at least to an extent, and therefore satisfies the limitation of the term “reflective”) provided on a bottom of a space delimited between the two series of photovoltaic solar panels arranged in the V-shape, which is configured to act as a drainage channel (Chekired – Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chekired discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chekired does not explicitly disclose the rows are arranged with a pitch sufficient to avoid that at a beginning and at an end of the apparent diurnal motion of the sun, the two series of photovoltaic solar panels of each row shade an adjacent row.
As the agricultural production efficiency (plant yield affected by shading) and the photovoltaic power production efficiency (photovoltaic yield affected by number of modules) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said pitch, with said agricultural production efficiency increasing and said photovoltaic power production efficiency decreasing as the pitch is increased, the precise row pitch would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed pitch cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the row pitch in the apparatus of modified Chekired to obtain the desired balance between the agricultural production efficiency (plant yield) and the photovoltaic power production efficiency (photovoltaic yield) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that it is axiomatic that to properly assert an REV position, the variable in question must be disclosed and recognized in the prior art. Applicant further asserts that Chekired does not disclose or suggest this angle and, as such, the bisector angle simply cannot be an REV.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Chekired discloses a second angle in the
first full paragraph of the right column on page 31. As set forth in the office action, Chekired discloses the optimal tilt angle for a standard south facing system in Khemis Miliana was 32°, and a tilt angle of between 10° and 20° was expected to be sufficient to allow effective runoff of rainwater from the module surface to the rain gutter and have limited module to module shading (first full paragraph of right column on page 31).
Chekired further discloses in the first full paragraph of the right column on page 31 that the design was incorporated into a full agrivoltaic system with the module tilt angles, table height and array orientation, resulting in tilt angle of 15°, height of 2.5 m and an East-West orientation (-90°/90° azimuth).
Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Chekired does not disclose or suggest a second angle is not persuasive.
As set forth in the office action, as the agricultural production efficiency (rainwater collected) and the photovoltaic power production efficiency (photovoltaic yield) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said first and second angles, the precise values for the first and second angles would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed values for the first and second angles cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the values for the first and second angles in the apparatus of Chekired to obtain the desired balance between the agricultural production efficiency (rainwater collected) and the photovoltaic power production efficiency (photovoltaic yield) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Applicant further argues that the claimed angles are not simply matter of design
Choice, but on the contrary they are critical, in combination with the use of bifacial cells, to obtain the advantageous results set forth in the application.
In response to Applicant’s argument, unexpected results must be established by factual evidence; mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification do not suffice. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1977) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
It is noted that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-6 set forth in the previous office action, however, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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 Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights