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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 2-4 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 2 recites “wherein each photovoltaic solar panel has double-sided photovoltaic solar cells which have a first side relatively more efficient in generating electrical energy and a second side relatively less efficient in generating electrical energy,” however, the claim does not specify to what the limitations “relatively more efficient” and “relatively less efficient” are compared. The terms “relatively more efficient” and “relative less efficient” in claim 2 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively more” and “relatively less” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 2.
Claim 5 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. Specifically, lines 1 through 4 of claim 5 recite “wherein each photovoltaic solar panel has double-sided photovoltaic solar cells which have a first side relatively more efficient in generating electrical energy and a second side relatively less efficient in generating electrical energy,” however, the claim does not specify to what the limitations “relatively more efficient” and “relatively less efficient” are compared. The terms “relatively more efficient” and “relative less efficient” in claim 5 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively more” and “relatively less” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 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. Specifically, lines 1 through 4 of claim 6 recites “wherein each photovoltaic solar panel has double-sided photovoltaic solar cells which have a first side relatively more efficient in generating electrical energy and a second side relatively less efficient in generating electrical energy,” however, the claim does not specify to what the limitations “relatively more efficient” and “relatively less efficient” are compared. The terms “relatively more efficient” and “relative less efficient” in claim 6 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively more” and “relatively less” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the 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. Specifically, line 2 of claim 8 recites “a tracking device,” however, it is unclear as to whether the recitation refers to the previously recited tracking device of claim 7, from which claim 8 depends, or whether the tracking device recited in claim 8 is in addition to the tracking device recited in claim 7.
Claim 9 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. Specifically, line 2 of claim 9 recites “a tracking device,” however, it is unclear as to whether the recitation refers to the previously recited tracking device of claim 7, from which claim 9 depends, or whether the tracking device recited in claim 9 is in addition to the tracking device recited in claim 7.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al. (US 2022/0151163).
Regarding claim 1, Agrawal discloses a system of photovoltaic solar panels (Fig. 4; [0036]), configured to be installed in an outdoor field for agricultural use (abstract), comprising: a plurality of photovoltaic solar panels ([0038]), each including a plurality of photovoltaic solar cells ([0048]), wherein said plurality of photovoltaic solar panels are arranged in parallel and spaced rows (Fig. 4), so as to be configured for an agricultural or pastoral use of areas of the outdoor field between said rows ([0036]), wherein each photovoltaic solar panel of the plurality of photovoltaic solar panels has a planar configuration (Figures 5, 6A and 6B), with a first face and a second face opposite to the first face ([0054] - bifacial), wherein each photovoltaic solar panel is carried by a support structure ([0054] – support scaffolding), with an interposition of a tracking device including an actuator and an electronic controller configured to rotate the photovoltaic solar panel during an apparent diurnal motion of the sun ([0054] discloses a motor energized to pivot the solar panels and an electronic controller), said system further comprising: each photovoltaic solar panel includes an array of flat double-sided photovoltaic solar cells ([0048],[0054] – bifacial), coplanar to each other and arranged in a plane of a respective photovoltaic solar panel (Figures 5, 6A and 6B), wherein the double-sided photovoltaic solar cells have opposite sides exposed respectively on said first face and on said second face of the photovoltaic solar panel ([0054] – bifacial).
While Agrawal does disclose an electronic controller ([0054]), the electronic controller is programmed to pivot respective elongated bifacial solar panels with permissible maximum angle from the horizontal such that the overhang of respective elongated bifacial solar panel assemblies does not impede the movement of the widest farm machinery therebelow ([0055]), the electronic controller is programmed to pivot respective elongated bifacial solar panels with permissive maximum angle from the horizontal at night and/or during rainfall ([0055]), the electronic controller is programmed to pivot respective elongated bifacial solar panels with permissible maximum angle from the horizontal ɵm such that the overhang of a respective elongated bifacial solar panel module at the ɵm produces minimal overhead cover to plants therebelow ([0056]), that the elongated bifacial solar panels may be automatically pivoted to a generally vertical orientation during rain, and that the elongated bifacial solar panels may be automatically pivoted to be oriented perpendicular to solar rays at predetermined times ([0056]); Agrawal does not explicitly disclose the electronic controller of said tracking device is configured in such a way that, for an entire duration of the apparent diurnal motion of the sun, an inclination angle formed between the plane of each photovoltaic solar panel and a vertical plane parallel to a longitudinal direction of a row of the spaced rows never exceeds a value of 45°, except for a temporary phase at a solar zenith, in which the photovoltaic solar panel is given an overturning movement which is carried out in a time not exceeding one hour, wherein the electronic controller of said tracking device is configured and programmed in such a way that: said inclination angle of the photovoltaic solar panel varies progressively between an angle close to 0° at a beginning and an end of the apparent diurnal motion of the sun, and an angle between 5° and 40°, substantially at the solar zenith, and substantially near the solar zenith, the photovoltaic panel is overturned, in a time interval not exceeding one hour, so that at a beginning and at an end of said time interval, the photovoltaic solar panel is inclined on opposite sides with respect to a vertical reference plane parallel to the longitudinal direction of the row.
As the agricultural production efficiency and the photovoltaic power production efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said inclination angle and time interval, the precise programming of the electronic controller to adjust said inclination angle and time interval 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 programming of the electronic controller to adjust said inclination angle and time interval 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 program of the electronic controller in the apparatus of Agrawal to obtain the desired balance between the agricultural production efficiency and the photovoltaic power production efficiency (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).
It is noted that with regard to the limitations “configured to be installed in an outdoor field for agricultural and/or pastoral use,” “so as to be configured for an agricultural or pastoral use of areas of the outdoor field between said rows,” “configured to rotate the photovoltaic solar panel during an apparent diurnal motion of the sun,” “so that the first face of the photovoltaic solar panel can mainly collect direct solar radiation, and the second face of the photovoltaic solar panel can mainly collect diffuse solar radiation,” “the electronic controller of said tracking device is configured in such a way that, for an entire duration of the apparent diurnal motion of the sun, an inclination angle formed between the plane of each photovoltaic solar panel and a vertical plane parallel to a longitudinal direction of a row of the spaced rows never exceeds a value of 45°, except for a temporary phase at a solar zenith, in which the photovoltaic solar panel is given an overturning movement which is carried out in a time not exceeding one hour,” “the electronic controller of said tracking device is configured in such a way that: said inclination angle of the photovoltaic solar panel varies progressively between an angle close to 0° at a beginning and an end of the apparent diurnal motion of the sun, and an angle between 5° and 40°, substantially at the solar zenith, and substantially near the solar zenith, the photovoltaic panel is overturned, in a time interval not exceeding one hour, so that at a beginning and at an end of said time interval, the photovoltaic solar panel is inclined on opposite sides with respect to a vertical reference plane parallel to the longitudinal direction of the row,” 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 2, modified Agrawal discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Agrawal further discloses each photovoltaic solar panel has double-sided photovoltaic solar cells which have a first side relatively more efficient in generating electrical energy ([0054] – bifacial; when the first side is oriented such that incident light results in increased efficiency) and a second side relatively less efficient in generating electrical energy ([0054] – bifacial; when the second side is oriented such that the angle of incident light results in decreased efficiency).
It is noted that the efficiency of each side is dependent on the orientation with respect to incoming light. 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 3, modified Agrawal discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Agrawal further discloses each photovoltaic solar panel has double-sided photovoltaic solar cells all having their first side exposed on said first face of the photovoltaic solar panel ([0054] – bifacial).
Regarding claim 4, modified Agrawal discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Agrawal further discloses wherein each photovoltaic solar panel has an alternated distribution of first solar cells of the double-sided photovoltaic solar cells having their first side exposed on said first face of the photovoltaic solar panel and second solar cells of the double-side photovoltaic solar cells having their first side exposed on said second face of the photovoltaic solar panel ([0054] – bifacial; adjacent bifacial cells of the disclosed solar panel necessarily satisfy the alternated distribution claimed because the claims only differentiate the first side and second side in terms of degree of efficiency which is dependent on the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used (the efficiency of each side is dependent on the orientation with respect to incoming light). 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 5, modified Agrawal discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Agrawal further discloses each photovoltaic solar panel has double-sided photovoltaic solar cells ([0054] – bifacial) which have a first side relatively more efficient in generating electrical energy ([0054] – bifacial; when the first side is oriented such that incident light results in increased efficiency) and a second side relatively less efficient in generating electric energy ([0054] – bifacial; when the second side is oriented such that the angle of incident light results in reduced efficiency), wherein the double-sided photovoltaic solar cells of each photovoltaic solar panel all have their first side exposed on said first face of the photovoltaic solar panel ([0054] – bifacial).
While modified Agrawal does not explicitly disclose said tracking device is configured and programmed in such a way that after the photovoltaic solar panel has been overturned, a face of the first and second faces of the photovoltaic solar panel that is exposed to the sun is always the face of the first and second faces that was exposed to the sun in the first part of the apparent diurnal motion of the sun, so that the overturning of the photovoltaic solar panel involves passing through a position in which the photovoltaic solar panel is horizontal; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to program the tracking device in the manner claimed in order to achieve the objectives directed to agricultural production/maintenance as disclosed in paragraphs [0054] – [0056] of Agrawal. It is noted that the electronic controller of modified Agrawal has the capability to be programmed to achieve the claimed orientation(s), and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to program the electronic controller of modified Agrawal to achieve orientation(s) which would allow for the agricultural production/maintenance described in paragraphs [0054] – [0056] of Agrawal.
Regarding claim 6, modified Agrawal discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Agrawal further discloses each photovoltaic solar panel has double-sided photovoltaic solar cells ([0054] – bifacial) which have a first side relatively more efficient in generating electrical energy ([0054] – bifacial; when the first side is oriented such that incident light results in increased efficiency) and a second side relatively less efficient in generating electric energy ([0054] – bifacial; when the second side is oriented such that the angle of incident light results in reduced efficiency), wherein each photovoltaic solar panel has an alternated distribution of first solar cells of the double-sided photovoltaic solar cells having their first side exposed on said first face of the photovoltaic solar panel and second solar cells of the double-sided photovoltaic solar cells having their first side exposed on said second face of the photovoltaic solar panel ([0054] – bifacial; adjacent bifacial cells of the disclosed solar panel necessarily satisfy the alternated distribution claimed because the claims only differentiate the first side and second side in terms of degree of efficiency which is dependent on the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used (the efficiency of each side is dependent on the orientation with respect to incoming light). 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).
While modified Agrawal does not explicitly disclose said tracking device is configured and programmed in such a way that after the photovoltaic solar panel has been overturned, a face of the first and second faces of the photovoltaic solar panel that was not exposed to the sun in the first part of the apparent diurnal motion of the sun, so that the overturning of the panel does not involve passing through a position in which the photovoltaic solar panel is horizontal; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to program the tracking device in the manner claimed in order to achieve the objectives directed to agricultural production/maintenance as disclosed in paragraphs [0054] – [0056] of Agrawal. It is noted that the electronic controller of modified Agrawal has the capability to be programmed to achieve the claimed orientation(s), and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to program the electronic controller of modified Agrawal to achieve orientation(s) which would allow for the agricultural production/maintenance described in paragraphs [0054] – [0056] of Agrawal.
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]).
With regard to the limitation “configured 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]).
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).
Conclusion
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