DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 19/034,187, filed 1/22/2025, which is a continuation of 18/325,381, filed 5/30/2023, which claims priority to provisional application 63/349,389, filed 6/6/2022.
Claims 21-40 are pending in the application, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0042680 A1: This reference teaches an indicator light that indicates connection of adjacent modules (Fig. 9, paragraph [0036]).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0043869 A1: This reference teaches a solar panel array on a roof, comprising indicator lights 135 that indicate the status of the individual solar panels (Fig. 1, paragraph [0026]).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0062078 A1: This reference teaches a solar panel array on a roof, with indicator lights disposed in areas between adjacent solar panels (Figs. 22-28, paragraphs [0134]-[0139]).
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 21-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,237,809 B2, in view of Rodrigues, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0090697 A1). Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,237,809 B2 teaches all of the limitations of instant Claims 21-39, except for “a first side lap portion,” recited in Claim 21.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar panel array on a roof deck, Rodrigues teaches that lapping vertically adjacent panels provides the benefit of shedding water (paragraph [0020]). Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the array of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,237,809 B2 to have “a first side lap portion,” based on the disclosure of Rodrigues.
Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,237,809 B2, in view of Rodrigues, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0090697 A1). Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,237,809 B2 teaches all of the limitations of instant Claim 40, except for headlap portion,” recited in Claim 40.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar panel array on a roof deck, Rodrigues teaches that lapping vertically adjacent panels provides the benefit of shedding water (paragraph [0020]). Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the array of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,237,809 B2 to have “a headlap portion,” based on the disclosure of Rodrigues.
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.
Claims 21, 24-25, 27-28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gangemi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0240490 A1).
In reference to Claim 21, Gangemi teaches a system (Figs. 28-32, paragraphs [0127]-[0141]).
The system of Gangemi comprises a plurality of photovoltaic modules 300 installed on a roof deck (Fig. 30, paragraph [0127]).
Gangemi teaches that each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules 300 includes a first side lap portion (a lower side that overlaps with another panel, Figs. 28-32).
Gangemi teaches that each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules 300 includes a plurality of solar cells 302 (Fig. 30, paragraphs [0127]-[0128]).
Gangemi teaches that each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules 300 includes a power electronics unit on the first side lap portion, corresponding to tray 370 and its component electronics (Figs. 28-29, paragraphs [0134]-[0140]).
Gangemi teaches that the power electronics unit is electrically connected to the plurality of solar cells 302 (paragraph [0138]).
Gangemi teaches that the power electronics unit 370 includes at least one first visible indicator, corresponding to the indicator light aligned with hole 395 (Figs. 28-28, paragraph [0140]).
Gangemi teaches that the light shows green when the associated panel is performing nominally, and red when the associated panel is inoperative (paragraph [0140]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the at least one first visible indicator is electrically connected to the plurality of photovoltaic modules.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the at least one first visible indicator is activated when an electrical voltage of the system is less than or equal to a predetermined voltage level (i.e. is inoperative).
It is noted that Claim 21 contains intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
In reference to Claim 24, Gangemi teaches that each of the plurality of modules 300 includes a wire cover bracket 310/320/398 (Figs. 28-29 and 31-32, paragraphs [0130], [0139]) located on the first lap portion.
Figs. 28-29 and 31-32 teach that each wire cover bracket is configured to receive the power electronics unit/tray 370.
Figs. 31-32 teach that the wire cover brackets 310/320/398 of the plurality of photovoltaic modules of the first subarray are configured to form a wireway.
In reference to Claim 25, Gangemi teaches that the at least one visible indicator includes a light source (paragraph [0140]).
In reference to Claim 27, Gangemi teaches that each module comprises a visible indicator (Figs. 28-29, paragraph [0140]). This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 27, wherein the at least one visible indicator includes a plurality of visible indicators.
In reference to Claim 28, Gangemi teaches that the system further comprises at least one cover (corresponding to tray face 380, paragraphs [0134]-[0136]) removably attached to at least one of the wire cover brackets 320.
Gangemi teaches that the cover 380 slides over the wire cover bracket 310/320 (Figs. 28-29, paragraphs [0132]-[0133]).
Gangemi teaches that the at least one cover 380 is configured to enable visible perception of the at least one visible indicator when the at least one visible indicator is active, through hole 395 (paragraph [0140]).
In reference to Claim 37, Gangemi teaches that the light shows green when the associated panel is performing nominally, and red when the associated panel is inoperative (paragraph [0140]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 37, wherein the at least one first visible indicator displays a first color when the electrical voltage has a first value, and wherein the at least one first visible indicator displays a second color different from the first color when the electrical voltage has a second value, wherein the second value is different from the first value.
It is noted that Claim 37 contains intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 22-23 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangemi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0240490 A1), in view of Narla, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0054406 A1).
In reference to Claim 22, the system of Gangemi does not comprise the rapid shutdown device required in Claim 22.
However, the system of Gangemi comprises photovoltaic cell electronics (paragraph [0129]).
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic array on a roof, Narla teaches an interconnect/control device 400 for an array of photovoltaic devices, wherein the control device 400 can be used to implement rapid shutdown of each panel, to provide the benefit of ensuring that the array does not exceed boundary conditions of the output voltage or current (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the photovoltaic cell electronics of Gangemi to comprise the rapid shutdown capabilities of the control device of Narla, to provide the benefit of preventing the array from exceeding boundary conditions.
Modifying the photovoltaic cell electronics of Gangemi to comprise the rapid shutdown capabilities of the control device of Narla teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein the system comprises a rapid shutdown device.
Modifying the photovoltaic cell electronics of Gangemi to comprise the rapid shutdown capabilities of the control device of Narla teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein the rapid shutdown device is configured to reduce an electrical voltage of the system to the predetermined voltage level (Narla, paragraph [0039]).
In reference to Claim 23, the power electronics unit of Gangemi does not comprise the items in Claim 23.
However, the system of Gangemi comprises photovoltaic cell electronics (paragraph [0129]).
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic array on a roof, Narla teaches an interconnect/control device 400 for an array of photovoltaic devices, wherein the control device 400 can be used to implement rapid shutdown of each panel, to provide the benefit of ensuring that the array does not exceed boundary conditions of the output voltage or current (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the photovoltaic cell electronics of Gangemi to comprise the rapid shutdown capabilities of the control device of Narla, to provide the benefit of preventing the array from exceeding boundary conditions.
Modifying the photovoltaic cell electronics of Gangemi to comprise the rapid shutdown capabilities of the control device of Narla teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the power electronics unit of Gangemi comprises a rapid shutdown device.
In reference to Claim 39, Narla teaches that the rapid shutdown device 400 includes a shutdown receiver (i.e. communication module 428, Fig. 4, paragraph [0038]), a shutdown transmitter electrically connected to the shutdown receiver (i.e. the switches that perform the shutdown process, Fig. 4, paragraph [0039]).
Narla further teaches that the rapid shutdown device 400 includes a shutdown power circuit electrically connected to the shutdown receiver, corresponding to the circuitry connected to the switches that perform the shutdown (Fig. 4).
It is the Examiner’s position that, because modified Gangemi teaches an indicator light that requires power to operate (see Gangemi, Figs. 28-28, paragraph [0140]), and because the shutdown structure that the indicator are all connected to the solar panels and disposed in the photovoltaic cell electronics of Gangemi, modified Gangemi teaches that the indicator circuit (i.e. the power circuitry used to power the indicator light) is electrically connected to the shutdown receiver and the shutdown power circuit.
Modified Gangemi teaches that the shutdown receiver, the shutdown transmitter and the shutdown power circuit are electrically connected to the photovoltaic modules, because they are all part of the photovoltaic cell electronics of Gangemi, per the modification.
Because modified Gangemi teaches that the shutdown circuitry performs the shutdown (as described in the rejection of Claim 22 above), and because Gangemi teaches that the indicator light indicates whether a solar module is functioning or in a shutoff state, it is the Examiner’s position that modified Gangemi teaches that the indicator circuit is electrically connected to the shutdown receiver and the shutdown power circuit, wherein the shutdown receiver is configured to detect a shutdown signal transmitted by the shutdown transmitter when the electrical voltage of the system is less than or equal to the predetermined voltage level, and wherein the indicator circuit is configured to receive the shutdown signal and activate the at least one first visible indicator in response to the receipt of the shutdown signal.
It is noted that Claim 39 contains intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangemi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0240490 A1), in view of Brown, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0211456 A1).
In reference to Claim 26, Gangemi is silent regarding the structure of the visible indicator light. Therefore, he does not teach that the light source is a light emitting diode (LED).
To solve the same problem of providing a visible indicator for a roof-mounted photovoltaic device, in which the visible indicator indicates a normal/abnormal state of a photovoltaic panel, Brown teaches an LED indicator in which the LED is “on” in a normal state, and off in an abnormal state (Fig. 6A, paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasives secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the lights of Gangemi to be LEDs, based on Brown’s disclosure that an LED is a suitable visible indicator for indicating a normal/abnormal state of a photovoltaic module.
Forming the lights of Gangemi to be LEDs teaches the limitations of Claim 26, wherein the light source is a light emitting diode (LED).
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangemi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0240490 A1), in view of Park, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0099027 A1).
In reference to Claim 29, Gangemi does not teach that the system of his invention necessarily comprises a monitoring device.
However, he teaches that one of several types of photovoltaic electronics suitable for use in the system of his invention includes a monitoring device (paragraph [0129]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included a monitoring device in the photovoltaic electronics for the system of modified Gangemi, because Gangemi teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the system of his invention.
Gangemi is silent regarding the property that is monitored by the monitoring device. Therefore, he does not teach that the monitoring device is configured to measure the electrical voltage of the system.
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic array mounted on a roof, Park teaches an optimization device comprising a voltage monitoring device associated with each solar panel of his invention (Park, paragraph [0094]).
Park teaches that the optimization device of his invention provides the benefit of optimizing the sunlight generation efficiency of the modules of his invention (Park, Abstract).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included the optimization circuitry of Park in the photovoltaic electronics of Gangemi, because (1) Gangemi teaches that the photovoltaic electronics of his invention include a monitoring device, and (2) Park teaches circuitry that optimizes the sunlight generation efficiency solar modules and includes a voltage measuring device.
Including the optimization circuitry of Park in the photovoltaic electronics of Gangemi teaches the limitation of Claim 29, wherein the system comprises comprising at least one voltage monitoring device, wherein the at least one voltage monitoring device is configured to measure the electrical voltage of the system. This “voltage monitoring device” corresponds to the voltage sensors present in the photovoltaic electronics of the combination.
It is noted that Claim 29 contains intended use limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus.
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 35, wherein the at least one voltage monitoring device includes a plurality of voltage monitoring devices, and wherein each of the plurality of voltage monitoring devices is located on a corresponding one of the plurality of photovoltaic modules. Figs. 28-29 of Gangemi show that each module comprises photovoltaic electronics, each of which comprise a voltage sensor, per the modification above.
In reference to Claim 30, Fig. 30 of Gangemi teaches that the array includes a first subarray and a second subarray, i.e. the rows of cells within adjacent panels 300.
Modified Gangemi does not teach that the system of his invention necessarily comprises a jumper module.
However, he teaches that one of several types of photovoltaic electronics suitable for use in the system of his invention includes a j-box, i.e. a junction box (paragraph [0129], with details given in paragraph [0066] and Fig. 8). Gangemi teaches that the junction box of his invention allows electrical connection between multiple panels (paragraph [0066]). It is noted that Fig. 31 of Gangemi teaches that the photovoltaic electronics (which Gangemi indicates as “I” in the figure) are disposed within the hollow space of the door 360.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included all of the electronics for each photovoltaic module in a junction box in the system of modified Gangemi, because Gangemi teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the system of his invention.
Including all of the electronics for each photovoltaic module of modified Gangemi in a junction box in the system of modified Gangemi teaches the limitations of Claim 30, wherein the system further comprises a jumper module, wherein the jumper module electrically connects the first subarray and the second subarray.
Including all of the electronics for each photovoltaic module of modified Gangemi in a junction box in the system of modified Gangemi teaches the limitations of Claim 31, wherein the jumper module includes a first junction box, and wherein the first junction box includes the at least one voltage monitoring device.
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangemi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0240490 A1), in view of Park, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0099027 A1), and further in view of Flaherty, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0000174 A1).
In reference to Claim 32, it is the Examiner’s position that modified Gangemi as applied to Claim 30 teaches that the jumper module includes a junction box that provides electrical connection between panels, and also includes a voltage monitoring device, that the jumper module of modified Gangemi includes a plurality of layers, as required by Claim 12. This “plurality of layers” corresponds to the layers of the voltage monitoring device, the electrical leads of the electrically connected solar panels, and the walls of the junction box.
Modified Gangemi as applied to Claim 30 further teaches that the at least one voltage monitoring device is located within the jumper module (i.e. located within the junction box).
Modified Gangemi does not teach that the plurality of layers is laminated.
To solve the same problem of providing a roof mounted solar array, wherein the array comprises a junction box, Flaherty teaches that injecting a potting compound into a junction box provides the benefit of protecting the components of the junction box from weather and providing strain relief (paragraph [0095]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have filled the junction box/jumper module of modified Gangemi with a potting compound, as taught by Flaherty, because Flaherty teaches that injecting a potting compound into a junction box provides the benefit of protecting the components of the junction box from weather and providing strain relief (paragraph [0095]).
Filling the junction box/jumper module of modified Gangemi with a potting compound, as taught by Flaherty, teaches the limitations of Claim 32, wherein the plurality of layers is laminated, and wherein the at least one voltage monitoring device is laminated within plurality of layers of the jumper module.
In reference to Claim 34, modified Gangemi as applied to Claim 30 teaches that all of the all of the electronics for each photovoltaic module of modified Gangemi in a junction box.
Therefore, modified Gangemi teaches that at least one second visible indicator is located on the jumper module/junction box.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangemi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0210490 A1), in view of Park, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0099027 A1), and further in view of Stoeber, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0182532 A1).
In reference to Claim 33, modified Gangemi is silent regarding the structure of the voltage monitoring device. Therefore, he does not teach that the at least one voltage monitoring device is a printed circuit board or flex circuit.
To solve the same problem of providing a voltage monitoring device for a photovoltaic system, wherein the voltage monitoring device is part of a junction box, Stoeber teaches a voltage monitoring device for a photovoltaic system in which the voltage monitoring device is incorporated into a printed circuit board (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0092]-[0093]).
Stoeber further teaches that the PCB of his invention provides the benefit of continuously monitoring and transmitting data collected from a given module, which allows remedies to be applied rapidly (paragraph [0107]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the voltage sensor of modified Gangemi to be part of a circuit board, as in Stoeber, because Stoeber teaches that the circuit board of his invention allows for continuous voltage monitoring and communication.
Forming the voltage sensor of modified Gangemi to be part of a circuit board, as in Stoeber, teaches the limitations of Claim 33, wherein the at least one voltage monitoring device is a printed circuit board or flex circuit.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangemi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0210490 A1), in view of Orr, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0329715 A1).
In reference to Claim 36, Gangemi is silent regarding the predetermined voltage level at which the shutdown takes place.
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic array with a safety shutdown device, Orr teaches that US safety codes require that conductors more than 5 feet inside a building or more than 10 feet from an array are limited to a maximum of 30 V and 240 VA within 10 seconds of shutdown (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have selected the shutdown voltage of the system of Gangemi to be less than 30 V, based on the teachings of Orr.
Selecting the shutdown voltage of the system of Gangemi to be less than 30 V, based on the teachings of Orr, teaches the limitations of Claim 36, wherein the predetermined voltage level is 0.1 volt to 30 volts.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 0.1 volt to 30 volts lies within the taught range of less than 30 V.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangemi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0210490 A1).
In reference to Claim 38, Gangemi does not teach that the at least one visible indicator necessarily performs in the manner recited in Claim 38.
However, he teaches that one of several suitable configurations for the visible indicator of his invention is a configuration in which the at least one visible indicator displays a first flashing code when the electrical voltage has a first value, and wherein the at least one visible indicator displays a second flashing code different from the first flashing code when the electrical voltage has a second value, wherein the second value is different from the first value (paragraph [0140]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have designed the indicator to function in this way, because Gangemi teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the visual indicator of his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodrigues, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0090697 A1), in view of Narla, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0054406 A1), and Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0063303 A1).
In reference to Claim 40, Rodrigues teaches a system (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0012]-[0026]).
The system of Rodrigues comprises a plurality of photovoltaic modules 11 installed on a roof deck (Fig. 1a, paragraphs [0023]-[0025]).
Fig. 1a teaches that the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes at least a first photovoltaic module and a second photovoltaic module, wherein the first photovoltaic module is vertically adjacent to the second photovoltaic module.
Rodrigues teaches that each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes a first end (i.e. the left end, as shown in Figs. 1 and 1a) and a second end opposite the first end (i.e. the right end, as shown in Figs. 1 and 1a).
Rodrigues teaches that each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes a headlap portion 13 extending between the first end and the second end (Figs. 1-3, paragraphs [0020]-[0022]).
Rodrigues teaches that each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes a first side lap portion located at the first end (Figs. 1 and 4, paragraph [0022]).
Rodrigues teaches that each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes a plurality of solar cells (paragraph [0012]) and a power electronics unit 21 on the first side lap portion, wherein the power electronics unit is electrically connected to the plurality of solar cells (Fig. 1, paragraph [0013]).
Rodrigues teaches that the second photovoltaic module overlays at least a part of the headlap portion of the first photovoltaic module (Figs. 1a and 3, paragraph [0018]).
The power electronics unit of Rodrigues does not comprise the rapid shutdown device required in Claim 40.
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic array on a roof, Narla teaches an interconnect/control device 400 for an array of photovoltaic devices, wherein the control device 400 can be used to implement rapid shutdown of each panel, to provide the benefit of ensuring that the array does not exceed boundary conditions of the output voltage or current (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the power electronics unit of Rodrigues to comprise the rapid shutdown capabilities of the control device of Narla, to provide the benefit of preventing the array from exceeding boundary conditions.
Modifying the power electronics unit of Rodrigues to comprise the rapid shutdown capabilities of the control device of Narla teaches the limitations of Claim 40, wherein the power electronics unit comprises a rapid shutdown device.
Modifying the power electronics unit of Rodrigues to comprise the rapid shutdown capabilities of the control device of Narla teaches the limitations of Claim 40, wherein the rapid shutdown device is configured to reduce an electrical voltage of the system to a predetermined voltage level (Narla, paragraph [0039]).
Modified Rodrigues does not teach that the power electronics unit includes at least one first visible indicator, wherein the at least one first visible indicator in at least one of the plurality of photovoltaic modules is activated when the electrical voltage of the system is less than or equal to the predetermined voltage level.
To solve the same problem of providing an inverter for a solar panel, Kim teaches a panel-mounted inverter 30 (Fig. 2, paragraph [0048]) comprising a signal light 40 (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0082]-[0086]).
Kim further teaches that the signal light 40 provides the benefit of indicating the function of the solar panel (paragraph [0084]), specifically, whether the voltage produced by a panel is below a set threshold (paragraph [0085]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the power electronics unit/microinverter of modified Rodrigues to include the signal light of Kim, in order to achieve the taught benefit of indicating the function of the solar panel (paragraph [0084]), specifically, whether the voltage produced by a panel is below a set threshold (paragraph [0085]).
Modifying the power electronics unit/microinverter of modified Rodrigues to include the signal light of Kim teaches the limitations of Claim 40, wherein the power electronics unit includes at least one first visible indicator, wherein the at least one first visible indicator in at least one of the plurality of photovoltaic modules is activated when the electrical voltage of the system is less than or equal to the predetermined voltage level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights