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 1, 3-20 and 171-198 are pending. Claims 14-20 and 188-198 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-13 and 171-187 examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and IA in the reply filed on 6/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 176-183 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 176-183, claim 176, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “the mobile generator …, further comprising a generator”. This is considered indefinite as one cannot distinguish between the “solar generator” and “the generator”. Claims 177-183 are rejected as being dependent on claim 176.
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, 3-6, 12-13 and 184-187 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyk (US 2017/0302223) in view of Li (CN 111750539)
Regarding claim 1, Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator (see para [0002]) comprising:
a housing (frame 12 and/or control box 22);
an adjustable support pillar (center post 40/38, hydraulic cylinder that extends) coupled to the housing (at least through frame 12) and configured to extend upward from the housing (see para [0014]-[0015], [0023]);
a solar array (11, see para [0015]-[0016] and [0021]); and
a multi-axis pivot (26, truss allowing pan and tilt) connecting the solar array (11) to the adjustable support pillar (38/42) such that:
the solar array is configured to move about at least two axes relative to the adjustable support pillar (see para [0018]); and
a height of the solar array is adjustable via the adjustable support pillar (see para [0002] and [0023]).
Boyk does not disclose the mobile generator comprises a solar array drive system comprising one or more motors; wherein the solar array drive system is configured to move in the two axes.
Li is analogous art to Boyk as Li discloses a mobile solar generator (see abstract and para [0005]). Li discloses the solar array is driven by a motor (see para [0008]); wherein the solar array drive system is configured to move the two axes (see para [0008] and [0009]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the solar array system of Boyk to comprise a motor, wherein the motor drives the tracking system, as the court has held combining prior art elements (i.e., the tracking system of Boyk with the motor of Li configured to move the solar array to track), according to known methods (i.e., as disclosed by Li), wherein the result is predictable. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 3, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 1, further comprising a controller in communication with the solar array drive system and configured to control the one or more motors to selectively move the solar array about one or more of the at least two axes (see Li para [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to cause the solar array drive system to move the solar array to track motion of the sun (see Li para [0008])..
Regarding claim 5, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to determine a motion path for the solar array to track the motion of the sun (see Li para [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 5, further comprising a compass and a global positioning system (GPS), and wherein the controller is configured to: receive position information from the GPS;
receive direction information from the compass; and
determine the motion path for the solar array to track the motion of the sun based on the position information and the direction information (see Li para [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 1, wherein the solar array comprises a plurality of solar panels (shown in Boyk fig. 2, see para [0008])).
Regarding claim 13, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 12, wherein the plurality of solar panels are arranged in an array configured to be deployed from a closed configuration,
wherein a subset of the plurality of solar panels are shaded by one or more of the plurality of solar panels, to an open configuration, in which none of the plurality of solar panels shades another of the plurality of solar panels (shown in Boyk figs. 2, 4 and 5, see para [0014]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 184, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the adjustable support pillar is rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation.
Li (see analogous art and obviousness discussion of claim 1) discloses an adjustable support pillar is rotatable about a vertical axis of rotation (see para [0008]).
The court has held it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., the pillar of Boyk and the rotatability of the pillar of Li) according to known methods (as disclosed by Li), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., tracking of the sun).
Regarding claim 185, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 184, but does not disclose wherein the adjustable support pillar comprises a rectangular cross section. Rectangular support pillars are a well-known expedient in the art (see MPEP 2144.03).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the support pillar of Boyk as a change of shape, i.e., round to rectangular, that does not impact the function is a matter of engineering design choice without patentable significance. See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 186, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 184, wherein the solar array is configured to rotate about the vertical axis of rotation by + 175° from a neutral position (see Li para [0008]).
Regarding claim 187, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 1, wherein the solar array is configured to tilt about a first axis of rotation between elevation angles (see Boyk para [0021]). Modified Boyk does not disclose the array rotates between elevation angles of 0° and 50°.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the degree of elevation tilt of Boyd to elevation angles of 0° and 50° as the tilt angle is a result effective variable, i.e., ability to track the sun. The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyk et al. and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (Bury (US 2024/0097606).
Regarding claim 7, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 6, further comprising a clock, and wherein the controller is configured to:
receive time-of-day information from the clock; and
periodically update an orientation of the solar array to move the solar array along the motion path based on the time-of-day information and the date information (see Li para [0008], see also obviousness discussion of claim 1).
Modified Boyk does not disclose the controller comprises a calendar to receive date information from the calendar and mover the solar array along the motion path based on the date information. Although Li discloses the vertical tilt to have input from GPS, Li, nor Boyk specifically discloses a calendar.
Bury is analogous art to Boyk as Bury discloses a method for a solar array to track the sun (see abstract). Bury discloses the use of a calendar and date to determine the angle of inclination (see para [0015]).
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 tracking method of Li and Bury) according to known methods (as disclosed by Li and Bury), to yield predictable results (i.e. tracking of the sun).
Regarding claim 8, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 7, wherein periodically updating the orientation of the solar array comprises, at predetermined intervals (see Li para [0008]):
determining an updated preferred orientation of the solar array based on the position information, the direction information, the time-of-day information, and the date information; and
adjusting the orientation of the solar array to the updated preferred orientation via the solar array drive system (see Li para [0008], see discussion of claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 8, where the controller is configured to adjust the orientation of the solar array at a rate of between once within a known set of minutes (see Li para [0008]).
Modified Boyk does not disclose the period of minutes is in the range of every 10 minutes and once every 60 minutes, although Li does disclose the minute variable as a result effective variable (see para [0008]).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to determine if the time of day is within a predetermined window of time, and, periodically updating the orientation of the solar array only if the time of day is within the predetermined window of time (see Li para [0008]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to determine the predetermined window of time based on the date information (see para [0008]). Boyk as modified by Li and Bury, Li uses the calendar to modify the inclination angle and therefore uses the time of day and date.
Claims 171- 175 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyk et al. and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuropas (US 2023/0188082).
Regarding claim 171, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 1, wherein the housing (12) comprises a battery compartment (36) and one or more batteries housed within the battery compartment (see Boyk para [0022] and Li para [0008]).
Modified Boyk does not disclose wherein the battery compartment comprising a climate control system configured to control one or more aspects of an environment within the battery compartment.
Kuropas is analogous art to modified Boyk as Kuropas is a mobile energy generator. Kuropas discloses a battery enclosed in a housing charged by photovoltaic panels (122a and 122c, shown in fig. 4) and other renewable energy source (see fig. 4 and abstract). Kuropas discloses the housing, and therefore the battery compartment, comprises a climate control system configured to control one or more aspects of an environment within the battery compartment (see para [0046], i.e., “provide climate control for a particular section(s) or subsection(s) 178a-e (FIG. 6) of the interior region 112 including, for example, the particular sections 178a, 178b of the integrated platform 100 in which the batteries 148 and controller 152 are housed”.
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 battery compartment of Boyk and/or Li with the climate controlled housing and battery compartment of Kuropas), according to known methods (as disclosed by Kuropas), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a controlled environment for the battery).
Regarding claim 172, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 171, but wherein the climate control system is configured to cause air to flow through the battery compartment (see para [0058], i.e., provide air circulation).
Regarding claim 173, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 172, wherein the climate control system includes a refrigerant circuit (HVAC) configured to condition the air that flows through the battery compartment (see para [0046] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 174, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 171, further comprising a temperature sensor configured to output a signal representative of a temperature of the battery compartment (see Kuropas para [0058]), and wherein the climate control system is configured to selectively heat or cool the battery compartment in order to maintain the temperature within the battery compartment within a predetermined temperature range (see Kuropas para [0058]). Specifically, Kuropas discloses “maintaining a temperature or range of temperatures”. The examiner notes, selectively heating can be caused by turning off HVAC and allowing the electrical components to heat.
Regarding claim 175, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 171, further comprising an inverter (150) (Kuropas para [0035]-[0036]), wherein the housing includes an inverter compartment configured to hold the inverter (shown in Kuropas fig. 4) (see Kuropas para [0035]). Kuropas discloses the inverter is able to convert DC power to AC power (see Kuropas para [0035]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile solar generator of Boyk to comprise an inverter inside housing as the inverter is able to convert DC power to AC power.
Claims 176-183 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyk et al., Li and Kuropas as applied to claim 171 above, and further in view of Sherry (US 10,389,121).
Regarding claims 176-178, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 171, but does not disclose the mobile solar generator further comprises a generator configured to generate electrical energy and a compartment of the housing configured to hold a reservoir of fuel for the generator (claim 176), the generator is configured to generate electrical energy from a non-renewable source (claim 177), wherein the generator comprises a propane generator, a diesel generator, or a fuel cell (claim 178).
Sherry is analogous art to modified Boyk as Sherry discloses a mobile (i.e., portable) solar generator. comprising a housing and a solar array (see Sherry fig. 1(a) col. 2, lines 62-65). Sherry discloses the mobile solar generator also comprises another generator of electricity wherein the housing is configured to hold a reservoir for fuel, i.e., propane, a non-renewable source (see Sherry col. 1, lines 55-61, and cols. 3-5).
Sherry discloses the propane fueled generator is used when the renewable sources of energy, i.e., solar energy, are not available or it would cost less to generate electricity with the propane fueled generator (see Sherry col. 8, lines 11-47).
Therefore it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mobile solar generator of Boyk to comprise an alternate propane/gas/etc. fueled generator as a backup when power from the mobile solar generator is not available.
Regarding claim 179, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 176, wherein the controller is configured to cause the generator to provide electrical energy directly to an external load (see Sherry col. 3, lines 55-59, col. 5, lines 42-49, col. 10, lines 24-31).
Regarding claim 180, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 176, wherein the controller is configured to cause the generator to provide electrical energy to the one or more batteries (see Sherry col. 8, lines 11-47).
Regarding claim 181, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 180, wherein the controller is configured to determine a state of charge of the one or more batteries, and, if the state of charge is below a threshold state of charge, then cause the generator to provide electrical energy to the one or more batteries (see Sherry col. 8, lines 11-47).
Regarding claim 182, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 181, wherein the controller is configured to determine an amount of energy provided to the one or more batteries from the solar array, and if the state of charge of the one or more batteries is below the threshold state of charge and if the amount of energy provided to the one or more batteries from the solar array is below a threshold amount of energy, then cause the generator to provide electrical energy to the one or more batteries (see Sherry col. 8, lines 11-47).
Regarding claim 183, modified Boyk discloses a mobile solar generator of claim 181, but does not specifically disclose wherein the threshold state of charge is adjustable by a user.
The court has held that modifying a manual procedure to an automated procedure and modifying an automated procedure to a manual procedure is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). See also MPEP § 2144.04.
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