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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/9/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous objections to the specification are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BR102017008561A2 to Almeida (machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 1, Almeida teaches a portable solar charging unit comprising
A flexible solar panel (Figs. 15, 16, ¶019, 020) comprising one or more solar cells (p. 2 of translation)
An inverter circuit (Fig. 7, ¶011, 023) operatively coupled to the flexible solar panel, the inverter circuit configured to convert direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) (¶023: “may be equipped with a Grid Tie type energy inverter”)
A power connector (e.g. “g”/”h” of Fig. 7, “k”/”L” of Fig. 8) operatively coupled with the inverter circuit, wherein the power connector is configured to mate with a charging port of an electric vehicle (Fig. 2, ¶006, ¶023: “The energy inverter can be equipped with an adapter (2a, 7g, 7h, 8k, 8L) or another energy output and will allow the distribution of the energy captured by the sun directly into the vehicle's energy network”)
A retractable roller (rod shaped element not specifically labeled in Fig. 15) attached to the flexible solar panel, wherein the flexible solar panel is rolled up against the retractable roller when not in use (compare Figs. 15, 16)
One or more mounting units (circular elements at the end of the rod shaped element in Fig. 15, similar to “b” of Fig. 6, “u” of Figs. 13, 14) attached to retractable roller (¶010, 017, 018), the one or more mounting units being configured to mount the flexible solar panel inside the electrical vehicle and on at least one of a windshield, a side window, or a rear window (Figs. 3-5, ¶007-009).
The examiner notes claim 1 recites that the power connector is “configured to” mate with a charging port of an electric vehicle, and the mounting unit is “configured to” mount the panel inside the electric vehicle. The “configured to” language is intended use language. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. As Almeida positively recites that the connector is configured to provide electricity to the electrical systems of the vehicle which it is mounted within, a skilled artisan would understand that the unit is capable of performing the claimed intended use when applied to an electrical vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0356726 to Venter (of record).
Regarding claim 3, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 1. Almeida does not specifically teach the material of the rod. Venter teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the rod of metal or plastic, as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,605,769 to Toms.
Regarding claim 5, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 1. Almeida does not specify the structure of the one or more mounting units. Toms teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to attach such a retractable ruler to a window using a suction cup, as it is conventionally used as a mounting unit (C6/L42-55). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0331652 to Okawa (of record).
Regarding claim 6, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 1. Almeida does not detail the layers of the flexible solar panel. Okawa teaches a similar flexible solar panel (¶0058, 0066, 0088, 0104), comprising a first layer (1303, 1304 of Fig. 13) comprising ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (¶0065: "Non-limiting examples of front sheet materials include ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE)", ¶0107), a second layer (1312) comprising a first ethylene vinyl acetate film (¶0068: "may harden after curing to form a thin transparent film between the front sheet and the PV cell. Non-limiting examples of encapsulant materials include ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA)", ¶0109), a third layer comprising one or more solar cells (1305, 1306), a fourth layer (1314) comprising a second ethylene vinyl acetate film, and a fifth layer (1301, 1302) comprising a tedlar polyester tedlar back sheet (¶0065: "Non-limiting examples of back sheet materials include glass, Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Tedlar polyester (TPT)"). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the flexible solar panel with the claimed structure, as it only requires the choice of a commonly known structure. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0288607 to Moslehi (of record).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 1. Almeida teaches that the one or more solar cells can comprise silicon (¶002), but does not teach a PERC or monocrystalline silicon solar cell. Moslehi teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the one or more solar cells of the solar panel to comprise a full, half, or quarter passivated emitter rear cell (PERC), and/or to comprise monocrystalline silicon (Moslehi teaches cells formed of full cells or cell divided into portions, ¶0042-0049) in order to obtain optimum electrical and mechanical properties.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0159489 to Clough (of record).
Regarding claim 9, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 1. Almeida does not teach a rated output of the one or more solar cells. Clough teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose a rated output of solar cells in a solar panel in order to optimize the area and number of solar panels (¶0039). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Almeida.
Regarding claim 10, Almeida teaches a method comprising
Forming a flexible solar panel (Figs. 15, 16, ¶019, 020) comprising one or more solar cells (p. 2 of translation)
Connecting an inverter circuit (Fig. 7, ¶011, 023) to the flexible solar panel, the inverter circuit configured to convert direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) (¶023: “may be equipped with a Grid Tie type energy inverter”)
Connecting a power connector (e.g. “g”/”h” of Fig. 7, “k”/”L” of Fig. 8) to the inverter circuit, the power connector configured to mate with a charging port of an electric vehicle (Fig. 2, ¶006, ¶023: “The energy inverter can be equipped with an adapter (2a, 7g, 7h, 8k, 8L) or another energy output and will allow the distribution of the energy captured by the sun directly into the vehicle's energy network”)
Attaching one or more retractable rollers (rod shaped element not specifically labeled in Fig. 15) to the flexible solar panel, wherein the flexible solar panel is rolled up against the retractable roller when not in use (compare Figs. 15, 16)
Attaching one or more mounting units (circular elements at the end of the rod shaped element in Fig. 15, similar to “b” of Fig. 6, “u” of Figs. 13, 14) to the retractable roller (¶010, 017, 018), the one or more mounting units being configured to mount the flexible solar panel inside the electrical vehicle and on at least one of a windshield, a side window, or a rear window (Figs. 3-5, ¶007-009).
Almeida largely discusses the structure in terms of a finished product, and does not explicitly describe the generically described “forming”, “connecting”, “attaching”, etc. steps in terms of a method. However, the Examiner contends that all of the steps were necessarily performed in the formation of the product, especially given that the steps are generically recited and need not logically be performed in the recited order.
However, if it can be shown that the scope of the claim necessitates specific “forming”, “connecting”, etc. steps to be recited for prior art to anticipate the claimed method, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to necessarily perform the claimed steps with the recited detail, as Almeida teaches structural connections that would result from such steps.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Okawa.
Regarding claim 13, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 10. Almeida does not detail the formation of the layers of the flexible solar panel. Okawa teaches a method of forming a similar flexible solar panel (¶0058, 0066, 0088, 0104), comprising forming a top layer (1303, 1304 of Fig. 13) comprising ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (¶0065: "Non-limiting examples of front sheet materials include ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE)", ¶0107), forming a top intermediate layer (1312) comprising a first ethylene vinyl acetate film (¶0068: "may harden after curing to form a thin transparent film between the front sheet and the PV cell. Non-limiting examples of encapsulant materials include ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA)", ¶0109), forming a center layer comprising one or more solar cells (1305, 1306), forming a bottom intermediate layer (1314) comprising a second ethylene vinyl acetate film, and forming a bottom back layer (1301, 1302) comprising a tedlar polyester tedlar back sheet (¶0065: "Non-limiting examples of back sheet materials include glass, Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Tedlar polyester (TPT)"). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the flexible solar panel with the claimed structure, as it only requires the choice of a commonly known structure. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Moslehi.
Regarding claim 14, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 10. Almeida teaches that the one or more solar cells can comprise silicon (¶002), but does not teach a PERC solar cell. Moslehi teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the one or more solar cells of the solar panel to comprise a full, half, or quarter passivated emitter rear cell (PERC) (Moslehi teaches cells formed of full cells or cell divided into portions, ¶0042-0049) in order to obtain optimum electrical and mechanical properties.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Almeida, and further in view of US 2022/0379734 to Kim.
Regarding claim 15, Almeida teaches an apparatus comprising
A vehicle (Figs. 3-5, Abstract)
portable solar charging unit configured to be directly or indirectly coupled to the electrical systems of the vehicle comprising
A flexible solar panel (Figs. 15, 16, ¶019, 020) comprising one or more solar cells (p. 2 of translation)
An inverter circuit (Fig. 7, ¶011, 023) operatively coupled to the flexible solar panel, the inverter circuit configured to convert direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC) (¶023: “may be equipped with a Grid Tie type energy inverter”)
A power connector (e.g. “g”/”h” of Fig. 7, “k”/”L” of Fig. 8) operatively coupled with the inverter circuit, wherein the power connector is configured to mate with a charging port of the vehicle (Fig. 2, ¶006, ¶023: “The energy inverter can be equipped with an adapter (2a, 7g, 7h, 8k, 8L) or another energy output and will allow the distribution of the energy captured by the sun directly into the vehicle's energy network”)
A retractable roller (rod shaped element not specifically labeled in Fig. 15) attached to the flexible solar panel, wherein the flexible solar panel is rolled up against the retractable roller when not in use (compare Figs. 15, 16)
One or more mounting units (circular elements at the end of the rod shaped element in Fig. 15, similar to “b” of Fig. 6, “u” of Figs. 13, 14) attached to retractable roller (¶010, 017, 018), the one or more mounting units being configured to mount the flexible solar panel inside the vehicle and on at least one of a windshield, a side window, or a rear window (Figs. 3-5, ¶007-009).
Almeida does not explicitly teach that the vehicle is an electric vehicle and that the unit is coupled to a battery pack of the electric vehicle. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the unit in conjunction with an electric vehicle, as Kim teaches that such units are conventionally used to charge battery packs of electric vehicles (¶0003-0007, 0076). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Toms.
Regarding claim 18, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 15. Almeida does not specify the structure of the one or more mounting units. Toms teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to attach such a retractable ruler to a window using a suction cup, as it is conventionally used as a mounting unit (C6/L42-55). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Moslehi.
Regarding claim 19, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 15. Almeida teaches that the one or more solar cells can comprise silicon (¶002), but does not teach a PERC or monocrystalline silicon solar cell. Moslehi teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the one or more solar cells of the solar panel to comprise a full, half, or quarter passivated emitter rear cell (PERC), and/or to comprise monocrystalline silicon (Moslehi teaches cells formed of full cells or cell divided into portions, ¶0042-0049) in order to obtain optimum electrical and mechanical properties.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Clough.
Regarding claim 20, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 15. Almeida does not teach a rated output of the one or more solar cells. Clough teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose a rated output of solar cells in a solar panel in order to optimize the area and number of solar panels (¶0039). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almeida as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Okawa.
Regarding claim 21, Almeida teaches the limitations of claim 15. Almeida does not detail the layers of the flexible solar panel. Okawa teaches a similar flexible solar panel (¶0058, 0066, 0088, 0104), comprising a first layer (1303, 1304 of Fig. 13) comprising ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (¶0065: "Non-limiting examples of front sheet materials include ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE)", ¶0107), a second layer (1312) comprising a first ethylene vinyl acetate film (¶0068: "may harden after curing to form a thin transparent film between the front sheet and the PV cell. Non-limiting examples of encapsulant materials include ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA)", ¶0109), a third layer comprising one or more solar cells (1305, 1306), a fourth layer (1314) comprising a second ethylene vinyl acetate film, and a fifth layer (1301, 1302) comprising a tedlar polyester tedlar back sheet (¶0065: "Non-limiting examples of back sheet materials include glass, Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Tedlar polyester (TPT)"). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the flexible solar panel with the claimed structure, as it only requires the choice of a commonly known structure. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 13-15, and 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726