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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Milshtein (US Pub No. 2020/0395891)
Regarding Claim 1, Milshtein et al. teaches a photovoltaic device converting received light into electric power [30, Fig. 4, 0038], the photovoltaic device comprising:
a photovoltaic unit having, among panels having photovoltaic modules for converting the light into the electric power [see 32 as the photovoltaic unit, Fig. 4, 0038]
a snow accumulation part on which the snow accumulates when snow falling and a non-snow accumulation part on which the snow does not accumulate when snow falling, the snow accumulation part and the non-snow accumulation part being connected in series therein [sensors 50 in figure 6 are used to detect snow on the solar panels, Fig. 6, 0040, examiner is reading the snow accumulation part as the part that the sensor can detect, and the non-snow accumulation part as the part where the sensor cannot detect (i.e. the back of the cell)];
a power output circuit [44 or 48, Fig. 4, 0038] connecting in series the photovoltaic unit and an external device [inverter, Fig. 4, 0038] which utilizes the electric power generated by the photovoltaic unit [0038, During frozen water mitigation operation, the circuit makes use of bypass current blocking diodes 44 and 48 connected in series with the solar panel sets 32 and 36, respectively, which allows flow of current only through the solar panels 32, 36 and not the bypass diodes connected in antiparallel to each of them as shown in FIG. 4.]:
a bypass circuit [46 or 49, Fig. 4, 0038] connecting an output terminal side and an input terminal side of the photovoltaic unit in such a manner as to bypass the external device [inverter, Fig. 4, 0038]; and
a switching unit [40, Fig. 4, 0038] which allows the photovoltaic unit to be switched to either the power output circuit or the bypass circuit [0038].
Regarding Claim 2, Milshtein et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Milshtein et al. teaches further comprising a control unit [47, Fig. 4, 0039] which controls the switching of the circuits by the switching unit,
wherein the control unit controls the switching unit so that the switching unit switches the power output circuit to the bypass circuit in a case where the snow accumulation part is accumulated with the snow, and
wherein the control unit controls the switching unit so that the switching unit switches the bypass circuit to the power output circuit in a case where the snow accumulation part is not accumulated with the snow [0039, 0038-0039, Fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 3, Milshtein et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Milshtein et al. teaches wherein the control unit comprises a snow accumulated state determining circuit for determining whether or not the snow accumulation part is accumulated with the snow [0038-0039].
Regarding Claim 4, Milshtein et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Milshtein et al. teaches wherein the snow accumulated state determining circuit determines whether or not the snow accumulation part is accumulated with the snow, in correspondence to a detected temperature which is detected by a temperature sensor disposed in the photovoltaic unit [0039].
Regarding Claim 5, Milshtein et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Milshtein et al. teaches wherein the control unit determines that the snow accumulation part is accumulated with the snow when a state in which the detected temperature is a predetermined temperature or less for determining the snow accumulated state is continuously kept for a predetermined time [Fig. 5-6, 0039-0040].
Regarding Claim 6, Milshtein et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Milshtein et al. teaches wherein the control unit determines that the snow accumulation part is not accumulated with the snow when a state in which the detected temperature is a predetermined temperature or more for determining the non-snow accumulated state is continuously kept for a predetermined time [Fig. 5-6, 0039-0040].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milshtein (US Pub No. 2020/0395891) in view of Hernandez (US Pub No. 2024/0007044)
Regarding Claim 7, Milshtein et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Milshtein et al. is silent on wherein the photovoltaic unit is a both sides photovoltaic panel which is exposed to the light and generates power in both front face and back face, the front face being the snow accumulation part which is disposed in an upper space side and is accumulated with the snow, and the back face being the non-snow accumulation part which is disposed in the side opposite to the front face
Hernandez et al. teaches a bifacial pv module used as part of a solar tracker [Abstract].
Since Milshtein et al. teaches a system for removing ice and snow from solar panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the system of Milshtein et al. to the solar tracker of Hernandez et al. and configuring a snow accumulation and non-snow accumulation part to the solar tracker of Hernandez et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for outdoor solar panels and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 8, Milshtein et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Milshtein et al. is silent on wherein the non-snow accumulation part is in a state in which the panels are placed vertically, and wherein the snow accumulation part is a one side photovoltaic panel in which the photovoltaic module is disposed in an upper space side, or a both sides photovoltaic panel which is exposed to the light and generates power in both front face and back face, the front face having the photovoltaic module disposed in an upper space side, and the back face being disposed in the side opposite to the front face.
Hernandez et al. teaches a bifacial pv module used as part of a solar tracker [Abstract].
Since Milshtein et al. teaches a system for removing ice and snow from solar panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the system of Milshtein et al. to the solar tracker of Hernandez et al. and configuring a snow accumulation and non-snow accumulation part to the solar tracker of Hernandez et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for outdoor solar panels and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milshtein (US Pub No. 2020/0395891) in view of Sewalt (US Pub No. 2020/0287502)
Regarding Claim 9, Milshtein et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Milshtein et al. is silent on wherein the snow accumulation part is disposed in a road surface.
Sewalt et al. teaches the use of a pv assembly that is integrated in a road surface [Abstract, 0027].
Since Milshtein et al. teaches a system for removing ice and snow from solar panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the system of Milshtein et al. to the pv assembly in the road of Sewalt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for pv modules in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights