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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 8-15 are pending and examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, the claim recites “comprises further comprises”. Please delete the words “further comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pfrenger (US 2013/0087640).
Regarding claim 8, Pfrenger discloses a multi-position solar panel array system (see abstract) comprising:
a plurality of solar panel arrays (e.g., 28A-D, 28A and 28B are one array; 28C and 28D is a second array) that, when arranged in parallel (see fig. 1, positioned to face the sun) for a first solar power generation configuration, are configured to fit collectively within a first two-dimensional region comprising a width and a length (shown in fig. 1, para [0025]-[0035]),
wherein each solar panel array, of the plurality of solar panel arrays, comprises:
a moveable frame (truss 18A-D), and at least one solar panel mounted on the moveable frame along at least a portion of the width of the first two-dimensional region (shown in fig. 1, note, width of first two-dimensional region is defined by solar array/panels);
at least two rails, comprising a first rail and a second rail (shown in fig. 1, array 28A-B has at least two rails connecting wheels 22A and 22B; array 28C-28-D has at least two rails connecting wheels 22C and 22D), that are configured to support the plurality of solar panel arrays (para [0028]), wherein:
the first rail and the second rail are configured to be arranged in parallel to each other (shown in fig. 1), and the first rail and the second rail facilitate movement of the plurality of solar panel arrays from the first two-dimensional region for the first solar power generation configuration to a second two-dimensional region for a second solar power generation configuration (see para [0025]-[0035]), and
wherein at least one of:
the first solar power generation configuration comprises the second two- dimensional region being configured for agricultural use; or
the second solar power generation configuration comprises the first two- dimensional region being configured for agricultural use (see para [0025]-[0035]) .
Regarding claim 14, Pfrenger discloses a multi-position solar panel array system of claim 8, further comprising a friction reducing element for facilitating movement of the plurality of solar panel arrays between the first two-dimensional region and the second two-dimensional region, wherein the friction reducing element comprises at least one of: a wheel; a bearing; or a chain coupled to one or more gears (wheels 20A-D, see fig. 1, para [0028]).
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfenger et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyden (US 2012/0204925).
Regarding claim 9, Pfrenger discloses the multi-position solar panel array system of claim 8, further comprising stationary electrical equipment (within housing (40), shown in fig. 1, see para [0053]). Pfrenger discloses wherein the stationary electrical equipment comprises a controller (see para [0053]).
Pfrenger does not disclose wherein the stationary electrical equipment comprises an AC disconnect configured to be coupled to at least one solar panel array of the plurality of solar panel arrays.
Lyden is analogous art to Pfrenger as Lyden discloses a stationary electrical equipment associated with a rotating solar array (see abstract and fig. 16). Lyden discloses an AC disconnect (94) (see fig. 16, para [0083]). Lyden discloses the embodiment is alternat to being tied to further arrays, or a grid (see para [0083]), analogous to Pfrenger disclosing the stationary section is not required to be wired to further stationary sections (see para [0005], [0036]-[0037], [0043], [0052], [0054]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stationary electrical equipment of Pfrenger to include an AC disconnect as disclosed by Lyden to affect a stand alone electrical system.
Regarding claim 10, Pfrenger discloses the multi-position solar panel array system of claim 8, further comprising stationary electrical equipment (within housing 42, shown in fig. 1, see para [0053]).
Pfrenger does not disclose wherein the stationary electrical equipment comprises an inverter configured to convert power from direct current to alternating current both when the plurality of solar panel arrays is located in the first two-dimensional region and when the plurality of solar panel arrays is located in the second two-dimensional region.
Lyden discloses an inverter (91) as part of the stand-alone electrical system (see fig. 16, para [0083]). See obviousness discussion of claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfrenger et al. and Lyden as applied to claims 8 and 10 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0140781).
Regarding claim 11, modified Pfrenger discloses a multi-position solar panel array system of claim 10.
Modified Pfrenger does not disclose an array further comprising:
a plurality of combiner boxes, wherein each combiner box, of the plurality of combiner boxes, is configured to be mounted on one of the plurality of solar panel arrays and is configured to combine direct current and to provide the combined direct current to the inverter.
Zhang is analogous art to Pfrenger as Zhang is directed to solar cells. Zhang discloses a plurality of combiner boxes, wherein each combiner box, of the plurality of combiner boxes, is configured to be mounted on one of the plurality of solar panel arrays and is configured to combine direct current and to provide the combined direct current to the inverter. (see fig. 1, para [0070]-[0072]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e. arrays of Pfrenger and combiner boxes of Zhang) according to known methods (as disclosed by Zhang) to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfrenger et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Andrak (US 2017/0142956).
Pfrenger discloses a multi-position solar panel array system of claim 8, but does not disclose the array further comprising at least one lock configured to: resist movement of at least one solar panel array of the plurality of solar panel arrays, when the at least one lock is engaged; and
disable resistance of movement of the at least one solar panel array of the plurality of solar panel arrays, when the at least one lock is disengaged.
Andrak is analogous art to Pfrenger as Andrak discloses a self-propelled device through crops in an agricultural setting (see abstract).
Andrak discloses a system to lock and unlock the wheels as desired (see para [0035]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e. wheel movement of Pfrenger and braking/wheel lock system of Andrak) according to known methods (as disclosed by Andrak) to yield predictable results (ability to lock in place).
Pfrenger as modified by Andrak discloses at least one lock configured to: resist movement of at least one solar panel array of the plurality of solar panel arrays, when the at least one lock is engaged; and
disable resistance of movement of the at least one solar panel array of the plurality of solar panel arrays, when the at least one lock is disengaged.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfrenger as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lynn (US 2018/0195771).
Regarding claim 13, Pfrenger discloses a multi-position solar panel array system of claim 8, but does not disclose the system further comprising a plurality of electrical connectors, wherein at least one electrical connector, of the plurality of electrical connectors, is configured to be coupled to a respective at least one solar panel array of the plurality of solar panel arrays to facilitate disconnection of electrical power prior to movement of the respective at least one solar panel array and to facilitate reconnection of electrical power after movement of the respective at least one solar panel array.
Lynn is analogous art to Pfrenger as Lynn is directed to a solar array system (see abstract). Lynn discloses the system comprises a plurality of electrical connectors, wherein at least one electrical connector, of the plurality of electrical connectors, is configured to be coupled to a respective at least one solar panel array of the plurality of solar panel arrays to facilitate disconnection of electrical power prior to movement of the respective at least one solar panel array and to facilitate reconnection of electrical power after movement of the respective at least one solar panel array (see abstract and para [0002], [0093]-[0111]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e. the array system of Pfrenger with the ability to engage/disengage from a support structure, i.e. tower of Pfrenger) according to known methods (as disclosed by Lynn) to yield predictable results (ability to electrically engage/disengage from pivot support structure).
Double Patenting
Claims 8-15 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/218623. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the cited application recites all the limitations of the instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose the accumulative limitations of claim 15 and all intervening claims. Specifically, the prior art does not disclose
a multi-position solar panel array system wherein the moveable frame comprises a vertical adjustment element configured to enable movement of the plurality of solar panel arrays in a vertical direction to be either further from, or closer to, ground level, and wherein the vertical adjustment element comprises at least one of: a spring-loaded notch coupled with a plurality of vertically spaced holes; a turn-dial coupled with gear; or a motor coupled with an electronic controller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haastert et al. (US 2022/0256779), Agrawal et al. (US 2022/0151163).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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 at (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 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights