DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/890,397, filed on 09/19/2024, which is a continuation of PRO 63/539,282, filed on 09/19/2023.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 12/05/2025.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election of Species A1 (claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20) in the reply received on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are currently pending.
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 16 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-13, and 17-20 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 7, 10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 17 each recites “a material having an appropriate solar reflective index”. There is no objective method to determine whether or not a material is “appropriate”, therefore, the claim scope is indefinite and unknowable.
Claims 10 and 20 each recites “…wherein the one or more reflective surfaces of the reflector is optimized based on a gap…”. There is no objective method to determine whether or not a reflector surface is “optimized”, therefore, the claim scope is indefinite and unknowable. The specification refers only to Figure 20, but there is nothing in the disclosure to further explain what “optimized” means in this context. The examiner also cannot determine whether the recitation is describing that the gap is optimized to the reflective surfaces are optimized. The examiner requires further explanation of how a skilled artisan is to know whether this claim limitation is satisfied or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KINGSLEY (US 2019/0190440 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KINGSLEY teaches an apparatus comprising:
a reflector for a photovoltaic solar system, the reflector configured to couple to a torque tube such that sunlight is reflected upwards towards an underside of one or more photovoltaic solar panels (“standoffs 1120 are fashioned to be reflective to reflect additional light to the back side of the bifacial solar panels 1210”, para. 42 and Fig. 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner asserts that claim 1 requires only a reflector. No recitation positively requires either a torque tube or a solar panel, only that the recited reflector be “configured” to couple to a torque tube and be capable of reflecting light in an upward direction to a solar panel. Any other interpretation would imply that the claim scope is identical to claim 11, which would require additional grounds of rejection for multiple claims reciting identical subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, KINGSLEY teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more photovoltaic solar panels comprise one or more bifacial photovoltaic solar panels (the reflector apparatus would be capable of working with a bifacial panel).
Regarding claim 3, KINGSLEY teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reflector comprises one or more reflective surfaces (observe in Fig. 4 the at least one surface of the standoff 302 that is made of reflective material; reflective standoffs are made reflective by “painting them white, by coating them with a reflective coating, by polishing them, by choosing materials that are naturally reflective, or by treating them by other means”, para. 42).
PNG
media_image2.png
303
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, KINGSLEY teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more reflective surfaces comprise at least one of steel, polished steel, polished aluminum or a material having an appropriate solar reflective index (standoff can be made from steel or aluminum, para. 26, and can be polished, para. 42).
Regarding claim 8, KINGSLEY teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reflector is attached to the torque tube by bending the reflector for a press-fit or friction-based attachment, or is connected with fasteners (clamp-type attachment is used to connect the standoff with the torque tube purlin, para. 31).
Regarding claim 9, KINGSLEY teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reflector is fitted or retrofitted onto the torque tube that has one of a square shape, a round shape, or a multi- faceted shape (Fig. 12 illustrates how the standoffs 1220 are shaped to fit and match the associated round shape of torque tube 1230).
Regarding claim 10, KINGSLEY teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more reflective surfaces of the reflector is optimized based on a gap between adjacent photovoltaic solar panels or distance of the torque tube from the adjacent photovoltaic solar panels for increasing reflected sunlight from the reflector towards the underside of the adjacent photovoltaic solar panels (“By increasing the gap between the solar panel 102 and purlin 104, the purlin can block much less light on the cells of the solar panels above it. The solar cells that would be shaded have a much better view of the diffuse light from the atmosphere or the light reflected off the ground”, para. 26; thus the gap controlled by the reflective standoff is optimized).
Regarding claim 11, KINGSLEY teaches a solar system comprising:
a torque tube (“torque tube 1230”);
at least a pair of adjacent photovoltaic solar panels (“bifacial solar panels 1210”) coupled with the torque tube; and
a reflector configured to couple to the torque tube such that sunlight is reflected upwards towards an underside of the at least one pair of photovoltaic solar panels (“standoffs 1120 are fashioned to be reflective to reflect additional light to the back side of the bifacial solar panels 1210”, para. 42 and Fig. 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, KINGSLEY teaches the solar system of claim 11, wherein each solar panel of the at least a pair of adjacent photovoltaic solar panels comprises a bifacial photovoltaic solar panel (“bifacial solar panels 1210”, para. 42).
Regarding claim 13, KINGSLEY teaches the solar system of claim 11, wherein the reflector comprises one or more reflective surfaces (reflective standoffs are made reflective by “painting them white, by coating them with a reflective coating, by polishing them, by choosing materials that are naturally reflective, or by treating them by other means”, para. 42).
Regarding claim 17, KINGSLEY teaches the solar system of claim 11, wherein the one or more reflective surfaces comprise at least one of steel, polished steel, polished aluminum or a material having an appropriate solar reflective index (standoff can be made from steel or aluminum, para. 26, and can be polished, para. 42).
Regarding claim 18, KINGSLEY teaches the solar system of claim 11, wherein the reflector is attached to the torque tube by bending the reflector for a press-fit or friction-based attachment, or is connected with fasteners (clamp-type attachment is used to connect the standoff with the torque tube purlin, para. 31).
Regarding claim 19, KINGSLEY teaches the solar system of claim 11, wherein the reflector is coupled with the torque tube via shape fitted or retrofitted onto the torque tube, and the torque tube has one of a square shape, a round shape, or a multi-faceted shape (Fig. 12 illustrates how the standoffs 1220 are shaped to fit and match the associated round shape of torque tube 1230).
Regarding claim 20, KINGSLEY teaches the solar system of claim 13, wherein the one or more reflective surfaces of the reflector is optimized based on a gap between the at least one pair of adjacent photovoltaic solar panels or distance of the torque tube from the at least one pair of adjacent photovoltaic solar panels for increasing reflected sunlight from the reflector towards the underside of the at least one pair of adjacent photovoltaic solar panels (“By increasing the gap between the solar panel 102 and purlin 104, the purlin can block much less light on the cells of the solar panels above it. The solar cells that would be shaded have a much better view of the diffuse light from the atmosphere or the light reflected off the ground”, para. 26; thus the gap controlled by the reflective standoff is optimized).
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KINGSLEY (US 2019/0190440 A1), or alternatively, KINGSLEY in view of PANISH (US 2017/0063295 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, KINGSLEY teaches the apparatus of claim 3 and 13 above, but does not disclose expressly that the one or more reflective surfaces are one or more angled flat surfaces.
First, the examiner asserts that any intelligent entity such as a skilled artisan would find it immediately routine, obvious, and instantly productive to adjust the reflective surfaces to be angled, flat, or any configuration necessary to increase light reflection on the solar panels. The entire purpose of solar energy is to direct as much light as possible onto the panels to generate electric power at the greatest quantity. Changes in shape of a known component are recognized as a modification that is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Second, the examiner asserts that other prior art references teach and suggest the use of one or more angled flat surfaces so that sunlight is reflected upwards towards an underside of one or more photovoltaic solar panels. PANISH, for example, explicitly illustrates the exact configuration and capability claimed by the applicant (see Figs. 2B and 3). In PANISH’s illustrations, reflectors are arranged so that sunlight is reflected upwards towards an underside of one or more photovoltaic solar panels. PANISH expressly states that “the amount of energy collected by a solar unit can be optimized by considering the relationship between the quantity of sunlit area added by a reflector, and the efficiency of indirect solar energy harvesting according to the angle between one or more of the bifacial photovoltaic modules and reflectors” (para. 124).
PNG
media_image3.png
551
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
474
521
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans additionally would have found it obvious to modify KINGSLEY so that its one or more reflective surfaces are one or more angled flat surfaces in order to optimize the amount of energy collected by a bifacial solar panel and the efficiency of indirect solar energy harvesting according to the angle between one or more of the bifacial photovoltaic modules and reflectors as explicitly taught by PANISH.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The examiner did not identify any possible allowable subject matter in the applicant’s disclosure.
The examiner requests confirmation that the absence of an Information Disclosure Statement indicates that responsible entities know of no information which is material to patentability. See MPEP 609.
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
Prosecution Insights