DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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
Newly submitted claim 23 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 23 is directed to a process claim and claim 1 is directed to a product claim. The claims are distinct because the product as claimed can be made by a different process in which claim the converters is pre-connected to the substring.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 23 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 03/30/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 15-23 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 12/29/2025, Applicant has amended claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 15-17, cancelled claims 7 and 13-14, and added new claims 21-23. Claim 23 is withdrawn from consideration as being part of non-elected invention.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 15-17, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 12/29/2025 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2012/0060895 A1) in view of Bergveld et al. (US 2012/0098344 A1) and Garabandic (US 2012/0306279 A1) (all references cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Rubin et al. teaches a solar panel (Fig.8, [0094]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
771
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of terminals (see figure above); and
a plurality of substrings (strings 210, 212, 214, 216, fig. 8 and [0094]) of solar cells (22), comprising a first substring (string 210) and a second substring (string 214).
However, Rubin does not specifically teach a plurality of direct current (DC) to DC converters, comprising: a first DC to DC converter and a second DC to DC converter; and a switch, wherein the first DC to DC converter is connected across the first substring, the switch is connected between the first DC to DC converter and the second DC to DC converter, the second DC to DC converter is connected across the second substring, and the first DC to DC converter, the switch and the second DC to DC converter are connected serially between the second plurality of terminals.
However, Bergveld et al. teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of substrings (400; Fig.7) comprising a first substring and a second substring (see figure below), wherein the first substring comprises a plurality of solar cells electrically connected between a first terminal and a second terminal, and the second substring comprising a plurality of solar cells electrically connected between a third terminal and a fourth terminal (see annotated drawing below). Bergveld further teaches a first DC to DC converter (705) connected between the first and second terminal and a second DC to DC converter (705) connected between the third terminal and the fourth terminal. Bergveld teaches that each substring (400) is connected to its own DC-DC converter (705), the outputs 703 of which are placed in series again by a second plurality of terminals (see figure below), wherein each DC-DC converter ensures the connected solar substrings operates at its individual MPP. Therefore, even if a substring is shaded, it can still contribute to the output power of the module, since it can operate at a lower current because the substring current has been decoupled from the module current, which has a positive impact on the total output power [0068].
PNG
media_image2.png
490
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to connect each substring of Rubin to its own DC-DC converter in the same manner as taught by Bergveld in order to ensure that each substring is operating at its individual MPP to improve the total output power of the module as taught by Bergveld ([0068]).
However, Rubin as modified by Bergveld does not disclose a switch connected between the first DC-DC converter and the second DC-DC converter, wherein the first DC-DC converter, the switch and the second DC-DC converter are connected serially between the plurality of terminals.
Garabandic teaches a photovoltaic system (400; Fig.4) comprising a plurality of PV strings (405) that can be selectively connected or disconnected from a power converter 402 by a controller 499 in order to control the PV voltage. The controller is connected to switches 407, wherein each switch is associated with a string 405 of the PV generator that can be controlled by the controller to send control signals to the switches to connect or disconnect the string associated with the switch [0047].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to implement the switches and the controller of Garbandic to the solar panel of modified Rubin in order to selectively connect or disconnect the PV strings to the voltage grid as taught by Garbandic. Note that the switches of modified Rubin is disposed between two adjacent substrings of the plurality of substring in the same manner as taught by Garabandic (Fig.4).
Regarding claims 2, Rubin as modified teaches that the plurality of terminals comprises a positive terminal and a negative terminal along an edge of the solar panel (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
765
784
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Rubin teaches that the first DC to DC converted and the second DC to DC converter are disposed along the second edge of the solar panel (236; Fig.8) with the rest of the electrical components (i.e. where the terminals and the diodes are disclosed).
Regarding claims 4, Rubin as modified teaches that the first and second DC-DC converters are configured to execute Maximum Power point Tracking (MPPT) (see [0068] of Bergveld).
Regarding claim 5, Rubin teaches that the first substring (210) is connected in series to the second substring (214) between the plurality of terminals ([0094]).
Regarding claims 6, Rubin further teaches a first diode (236) connected across the first substring (210), and a second diode (236) connected across the first substring (214) (see fig. 8 and [0094]).
Regarding claim 8, Rubin teaches that when the solar panel is installed in a portrait orientation, the first substring (210) is disposed above the second substring (214) (Fig.8).
Regarding claim 9, Rubin further teaches a third substring (216), wherein the first substring (210) is disposed above the second substring (214), and the second substring is disposed above the third substring (216) (Fig.8).
Regarding claim 10, Rubin teaches that the first substring (210) comprises a same number of solar cells as the second substrings (214). Note that each substring (210, 212, 214, 216) has 12 solar cells (22) (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Rubin as modified by Garabandic discloses a controller (499, fig. 4 of Garabandic) configured to operate the switch (407) based on an indication related to over-voltage ([0015] of Garabandic).
Regarding claim 17, modified Rubin further teaches the plurality of substrings of solar cells further comprising a third substring (string 216); the plurality of DC to DC converters further comprising a third DC to DC converter (based on teachings of Bergveld above: See rejection of Claim 1), wherein the third DC to DC converter is connected across the third substring (216) (see fig. 8 of Rubin as modified by Bergveld).
Regarding claim 18, Rubin teaches a first diode (236) connected across the first substring (210), a second diode (236) connected across the second substring (214), and a first diode (236) connected across the third substring (216) (see fig. 8 and [0094]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Rubin further teaches a second switch connected between the second and third DC-DC converter (as modified by Garabandic to include the switch).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2012/0060895 A1) in view of Bergveld et al. (US 2012/0098344 A1) and Garabandic (US 2012/0306279 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Lekx et al. (US 2019/0019908 A1) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim15-16, modified Rubin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above, but does not specifically teach that the first substring is connected in parallel to a third substring, and the second substring is connected in parallel to a fourth substring.
However, Lekx teaches that the substrings (10; Fig.1 and 2) in a solar array can be connected to one another in series and/or parallel ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to electrically connect the two substrings of Rubin in parallel to obtain a desired current/voltage and electrical output for the solar array based on their electrical connection.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2012/0060895 A1) in view of Bergveld et al. (US 2012/0098344 A1) and Garabandic (US 2012/0306279 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Fornage (US 2014/0168835 A1) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Rubin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above, but does not specifically teach that the plurality of terminals are connected a junction box.
However, Fornage teaches a photovoltaic system (Fig.1) comprising a plurality of photovoltaic modules (1041, 1042,..), corresponding to the claimed “solar panel” and “the second solar panel”, wherein the PV modules are connected to a junction box (115; Fig.1) and the plurality of PV modules are electrically connected to one another [0022], corresponding to the claimed “in serial connection or parallel connection”. The junction box comprises a plurality of bypass diodes and switches and is configured to manage a bypass condition of a PV module due to shading condition, unexpected or undesirable operating conditions, disconnection of a PV module, PV module failure, disconnection for maintenance and the like [0035-0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to connect the solar panel of Rubin to a second solar panel with the same features and connect them to a smart junction box in the same manner as taught by Fornage in order to manage a bypass condition of a PV modules due to shading condition, unexpected or undesirable operating conditions, disconnection of a PV module, PV module failure, disconnection for maintenance and the like [0035-0036]. Moreover, it would have been obvious to electrically connect the solar panel of Rubin to a second solar panel with the same feature as the solar panel of Rubin in order to increase the generated electrical energy. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). (MPEP 2144.04, VI, B).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2012/0060895 A1) in view of Bergveld et al. (US 2012/0098344 A1) and Garabandic (US 2012/0306279 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Gibson et al. (US 2016/0226438 A1) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 20, modified Rubin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above, but does not specifically teach a fourth substring, a fifth substring, and a sixth substring, wherein the first substring is connected in parallel to the first substring, the fifth substring is connected in parallel to the second substring, and the sixth substring is connected in parallel to the third substring.
However, Gibson teaches a photovoltaic module (Fig.22) comprising four zones, each zone has a plurality of strings, wherein each string comprises a plurality of photovoltaic strips that are connected in series. Gibson teaches that the plurality of strings in each zone are connected in parallel between two terminals [0079-0081].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a fourth substring to the first substring of the solar panel of modified Rubin and electrically connect the fourth substring to the first substring in parallel between the first and second terminal, add a fifth substring to the second substring of modified Rubin between the third and fourth terminal and electrically connect the fifth substring in parallel to the second substring and add electrically connect a sixth substring to the third substring between the fifth and sixth terminals in the same manner as taught by Gibson in order to obtain a desired current/voltage and electrical output for the solar array based on their electrical connection.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al. (US 2012/0060895 A1) in view of Bergveld et al. (US 2012/0098344 A1) and Garabandic (US 2012/0306279 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Fornage (US 2014/0168835 A1) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 21, Rubin et al. teaches a system comprising
a first solar panel formed by first and second substrings (210 and 212) (Fig.8, [0094]) comprising a plurality of first terminals (see figure above), and a plurality of substrings (strings 210, 212, fig. 8 and [0094]) of solar cells (22), comprising a first substring (string 210) and a second substring (string 212); and
a second solar panel formed the substrings 214 and 216 (fig. 8), wherein the first and second solar panels are connected in series or parallel (implicitly it will be connected either in series or parallel).
PNG
media_image4.png
627
1012
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Rubin does not specifically teach a plurality of direct current (DC) to DC converters, comprising: a first DC to DC converter and a second DC to DC converter; and a switch, wherein the first DC to DC converter is connected across the first substring, the switch is connected between the first DC to DC converter and the second DC to DC converter, the second DC to DC converter is connected across the second substring, and the first DC to DC converter, the switch and the second DC to DC converter are connected serially between the second plurality of terminals.
However, Bergveld et al. teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of substrings (400; Fig.7) comprising a first substring and a second substring (see figure below), wherein the first substring comprises a plurality of solar cells electrically connected between a first terminal and a second terminal, and the second substring comprising a plurality of solar cells electrically connected between a third terminal and a fourth terminal (see annotated drawing below). Bergveld further teaches a first DC to DC converter (705) connected between the first and second terminal and a second DC to DC converter (705) connected between the third terminal and the fourth terminal. Bergveld teaches that each substring (400) is connected to its own DC-DC converter (705), the outputs 703 of which are placed in series again by a second plurality of terminals (see figure below), wherein each DC-DC converter ensures the connected solar substrings operates at its individual MPP. Therefore, even if a substring is shaded, it can still contribute to the output power of the module, since it can operate at a lower current because the substring current has been decoupled from the module current, which has a positive impact on the total output power [0068].
PNG
media_image2.png
490
528
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to connect each substring of Rubin to its own DC-DC converter in the same manner as taught by Bergveld in order to ensure that each substring is operating at its individual MPP to improve the total output power of the module as taught by Bergveld ([0068]).
However, Rubin as modified by Bergveld does not disclose a switch connected between the first DC-DC converter and the second DC-DC converter, wherein the first DC-DC converter, the switch and the second DC-DC converter are connected serially between the plurality of terminals.
Garabandic teaches a photovoltaic system (400; Fig.4) comprising a plurality of PV strings (405) that can be selectively connected or disconnected from a power converter 402 by a controller 499 in order to control the PV voltage. The controller is connected to switches 407, wherein each switch is associated with a string 405 of the PV generator that can be controlled by the controller to send control signals to the switches to connect or disconnect the string associated with the switch [0047].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at time of the invention to implement the switches and the controller of Garbandic to the solar panel of modified Rubin in order to selectively connect or disconnect the PV strings to the voltage grid as taught by Garbandic. Note that the switches of modified Rubin is disposed between two adjacent substrings of the plurality of substring in the same manner as taught by Garabandic (Fig.4).
Modified Rubin teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth above, but does not specifically teach that the plurality of first terminals are connected a junction box.
However, Fornage teaches a photovoltaic system (Fig.1) comprising a plurality of photovoltaic modules (1041, 1042,..), corresponding to the claimed “solar panel” and “the second solar panel”, wherein the PV modules are connected to a junction box (115; Fig.1) and the plurality of PV modules are electrically connected to one another [0022], corresponding to the claimed “in serial connection or parallel connection”. The junction box comprises a plurality of bypass diodes and switches and is configured to manage a bypass condition of a PV module due to shading condition, unexpected or undesirable operating conditions, disconnection of a PV module, PV module failure, disconnection for maintenance and the like [0035-0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to connect the solar panel of Rubin to a second solar panel with the same features and connect them to a smart junction box in the same manner as taught by Fornage in order to manage a bypass condition of a PV modules due to shading condition, unexpected or undesirable operating conditions, disconnection of a PV module, PV module failure, disconnection for maintenance and the like [0035-0036]. Moreover, it would have been obvious to electrically connect the solar panel of Rubin to a second solar panel with the same feature as the solar panel of Rubin in order to increase the generated electrical energy. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). (MPEP 2144.04, VI, B).
Regarding claim 22, Rubin as modified discloses that a plurality of second terminals (see annotated figure); a third substring (214) and a fourth substring (216) (fig. 8); a third DC to DC converter connected across the third substring (as modified by Bergveld); a fourth DC to DC converter connected across the fourth substring (as modified by Bergveld); and a second switch connected between the third DC to DC converter and the fourth DC to DC converter (as modified by Garabandic), wherein the third DC to DC converter, the second switch, and the fourth DC to DC converter are connected serially between the plurality of second terminals (as modified by Garabandic).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of .U.S. Patent No. 12,199,206. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of patent encompass all the limitations of the pending claims. Instant claims, specifically, claim 1, is/are broader than claims of the patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
On page 2-3 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose the first DC/DC converter, the switch and the second DC/DC converter are connected in series.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Rubin as modified by Bergveld discloses the use of DC/DC converter and further modified by Garabandic to teach the switch, and the combination shows the switch is in between the converters and in serial connection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sella et al. (US 2009/0206666 A1) discloses a system (30) comprising solar panel (301) having its own converter (305) (see fig. 3). It would be obvious to add a switch as taught by Garabandic.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights