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 in the reply filed on 1/31/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuchandra et al. (US 2022/0077813) in view of Oakley, Jr. (US 2021/0058027).
Regarding claim 1, Raghuchandra discloses an assembly apparatus (see fig. 3), comprising:
at least one solar cell (1007, on outside of concentrator 12 (330) configured to capture solar energy (see para [0036]);
a panel (320) actuator (360) configured to manipulate an operational parameter of the at least one solar cell (see [0039]);
a communication module (430) configured to receive at least one control signal (see para [0024], [0031], ; and
a processor configured to control the panel actuator to manipulate the operational parameter of the at least one solar cell based at least in part upon the at least one control signal (see fig. 7, para [0008], [0015]-[0018], [0036]-[0044], [0058]).
Raghuchandra does not disclose an energy storage configured to store at least a portion of solar energy captured by the at least one solar cell;
Oakley is analogous art to Raghuchandra as Oakley is directed to a solar array (see abstract). Oakley discloses a solar module array (100) includes a battery unit (140) (see para [0046]). Oakley discloses the battery may be used to store energy from the solar array to power electrical devices (see para [0046], [0048]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the assembly apparatus of Raghuchandra by including a battery (i.e., energy storage) as the battery is able to store energy from the solar cells and used to power electronic devices.
Regarding claim 2, modified Raghuchandra discloses an assembly apparatus of claim 1, wherein the operational parameter is a current or expected presence status adjacent to the at least one solar cell (see para [0007]-[0009], [0017]-[0018], [0036]-[0042], [0045] and [0058]).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghuchandra et al. and Oakley, Jr. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Blau (US 2014/0366929).
Regarding claim 3, modified Raghuchandra discloses an assembly apparatus of claim 2, wherein the presence status indicates current or expected presence of an object, and further wherein the panel actuator (Raghuchandra 360) is configured to manipulate position of the at least one solar cell responsive to a control signal received from the processor (see discussion of claim 1, para [0008],[0015]-[0018], [0036]-[0044], [0058]).
Modified Raghuchandra does not disclose the current or expected presence is that of livestock.
Blau is analogous art to modified Raghuchandra as Blau discloses a solar array (solar cells 1006, see figs. 11 and 17A, para [0180], [0210]-[0212]). Blau discloses monitoring the presence of an object, wherein a controller adjusts the solar assembly based on the presence of an object, specifically livestock and/or adverse weather (see para [0021], [0068], [0135], [0212]-[0213]). The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., sensor for livestock as taught by Blau) for another known device (i.e., sensor for flying object as taught by Raghuchandra and/or adverse weather as taught by Raghuchandra and Blau), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., prevent damage resulting due to contact of the assembly and object).
Regarding claim 4, modified Raghuchandra discloses an assembly apparatus of claim 3, wherein the panel actuator (Raghuchandra 360) is configured to position the at least one solar cell at any angle with respect to a ground surface when the assembly apparatus operates in a standard tracking mode (see Raghuchandra para [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Raghuchandra discloses an assembly apparatus of claim 4, wherein the panel actuator is configured to limit position of the at least one solar cell from parallel to the ground surface when the assembly apparatus operates in a presence mode (see Raghuchandra para [0040]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Raghuchandra discloses an assembly apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to designate whether the assembly apparatus is within a current use area based at least in part on the control signal, and to operate the assembly apparatus in a presence mode or a standard tracking mode based upon the designation (see Raghuchandra para [0008],[0015]-[0018], [0036]-[0044], [0058]).
Conclusion
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