DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a thermal storage module” in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
In Reference to Claim 1
The indefiniteness stems from the recitation of a “thermal storage module”. Applicant’s specification discusses multiple modules but does not explicitly disclose a “thermal storage module”. Applicant’s specification discloses a thermal storage or a modular thermal storage which performs the function of storage of thermal energy, however, Applicant’s specification additionally discloses a solar collection module which discloses the longitudinal relationship between itself and the lens array. (See Applicant’s specification, Paragraphs [0041]-[0047]). Additionally, the recitation of “a thermal load” includes “a thermal storage” (See claim 3), creating an further lack of clarity as to the structure of the “a thermal storage module” and what constitutes the module. Accordingly, as noted above, even in view of Applicant’s specification, it is unclear as to what constitutes the thermal storage module.
For Examination purposes, to not conflict with dependent claims, the claim recitations of “a thermal storage module” will be interpreted as a support for lens array frame/uprights and thermal collection system.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schilder (US 2010/0212660).
In Reference to Claim 1 (As Best Understood)
(See Schilder, Figures 3-4)
Schilder discloses:
A system comprising:
a first solar collection stage (2,3) configured to raise the temperature of a heat transport medium to a first temperature (See Schilder, Paragraphs [0037]-[0040]),
wherein the first solar collection stage (2,3) comprises:
a thermal storage module (6);
a lens array (i.e.-first row) on a frame (A) supported by uprights (13,B) to the frame (A) that enables the frame (A) to rotate about an axis longitudinal to the thermal storage module (6);
a second solar collection stage (2,3, i.e.-second row) raising the temperature of the heat transport medium from the first temperature to a second temperature(See Schilder, Paragraphs [0037]-[0040]),
an Nth solar collection stage (2,3 i.e -third row, fourth row, etc) further raising the temperature of the heat transport medium (See Schilder, Paragraphs [0037]-[0040]); and
a thermal load (15) thermally coupled to the heat transport medium having the further raised temperature, wherein the thermal load (15) uses heat provided by the heat transport medium to convert heat to electricity. (See Schilder, Paragraph [0039]).
The Examiner notes that medium of Schilder follows a linear path receiving heat from sequential solar thermal lenses thus providing staged heating of the medium. Additionally, Schilder discloses modular construction which would also create stages dependent on flow path. (See Schilder, Paragraphs [0014]-[0015]).
In Reference to Claim 3 (As Best Understood)
(See Schilder, Figures 1-5)
Schilder discloses:
Wherein the thermal load comprises a thermal storage (14). (See Schilder, Paragraph [0039]).
In Reference to Claim 4 (As Best Understood)
(See Schilder, Figures 1-5)
Schilder discloses:
Wherein the first and second stage are modular. (See Schilder, Paragraphs [0014]-[0015]).
In Reference to Claim 5 (As Best Understood)
(See Schilder, Figures 1-5)
Schindler discloses:
Wherein the first and second stages operate using different portions of a continuous heat absorber. (See Schilder, Paragraph [0039]).
The Examiner notes that Schindler uses is a continuous heat absorber of an array of lens focusing on sections of pipe with a heated medium flowing throughout. Thus both the first and second stages use different portions of absorption piping and different portions of liquid flowing therein.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilder (US 2010/0212660) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0146507).
In Reference to Claim 2 (As Best Understood)
Schilder discloses the claimed invention except:
Wherein the thermal load comprises a Stirling engine.
Johnson et al. (John) discloses a thermal solar energy capture and storage device. (See John, Abstract). John discloses utilizing the thermal energy to power a Stirling engine to generate electricity. (See John, Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the stored thermal energy of Schilder to drive a Stirling engine, as both references are directed to solar thermal storage to provide thermal energy to drive a thermal load. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a Stirling engine to drive a generator would be a simple substitution of on known thermal load for another that would yield the predictable result of efficiently driving a generator to generate electricity.
In Reference to Claim 6 (As Best Understood)
Schilder discloses:
Forming the solar panel system as modular. (See Schilder, Paragraphs [0014]-[0015]).
Schilder discloses the claimed invention except:
Wherein the system is disposed in an intermodal shipping container form factor.
John discloses a thermal solar energy capture and storage device. (See John, Abstract). John discloses uses a shipping container to mount and house both the modular solar array and the thermal storage. (See John, Paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the modular array of Schilder and thermal storage of Schilder disposed in a shipping container, as both references are directed towards modular solar thermal storage arrays. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that making the thermal storage array of such configuration would allow for modularity, portability and not require foundations and significant site preparations reducing the cost of the system. (See John, Paragraphs [0075]-[0076]).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapteyn (US 8,851,066) in view of Hong (KR 1020240007780), further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2016/0146507).
In Reference to Claim 7
(See Kapteyn, Figures 1-7)
Kapteyn discloses:
A thermal collection system comprising:
a thermal storage comprising a linear heat absorber (28) disposed along a longitudinal axis of the thermal storage (35), wherein the linear heat absorber (28) comprises a radiation-transmissive tubular structure having an outer cylindrical surface and containing a heat transport medium (See Kapteyn, Column 5, Lines 4-27 & Column 5, Lines 57-64);
a reflector array (27a-b) configured to concentrate incident solar energy to a corresponding focal point on the outer cylindrical surface of the linear heat absorber (28) to form a localized hot spot. (See Kapteyn, Column 5, Lines 4-27);
generating electrical power using the solar heat. (See Kapteyn, Column 10, Lines 26-28).
Kapteyn discloses the claimed invention except:
a Stirling engine; and a lens array comprising a plurality of lenses rotatable about the longitudinal axis of the thermal storage; wherein each lens of the lens array is configured to concentrate incident solar energy to a corresponding focal point on the outer cylindrical surface of the linear heat absorber to form a localized hot spot, and wherein rotation of the lens array about the longitudinal axis causes the focal points to be directed to different portions of the outer cylindrical surface such that the corresponding hot spots move circumferentially about the outer cylindrical surface and occur at different positions along a length of the linear heat absorber, thereby heating the heat transport medium within the linear heat absorber, and wherein the Stirling engine uses heat provided by the heat transport medium to convert the heat to electricity.
Hong discloses a solar thermal energy capture device. (See Hong, Paragraph [0001]). Hong discloses a lens array comprising a plurality of lenses rotatable about the longitudinal axis of the thermal storage; wherein each lens of the lens array is configured to concentrate incident solar energy to a corresponding focal point on the outer cylindrical surface of the linear heat absorber to form a localized hot spot, and wherein rotation of the lens array about the longitudinal axis causes the focal points to be directed to different portions of the outer cylindrical surface such that the corresponding hot spots move circumferentially about the outer cylindrical surface and occur at different positions along a length of the linear heat absorber, thereby heating the heat transport medium within the linear heat absorber. (See Hong, Paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the Fresnel lens solar concentrator to heat the linear heat absorber, as both references are directed towards solar thermal energy capture devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the lens system of Hong would have allowed for increased efficiency and enhanced energy collection as the device can optimize solar power generation by allowing for angle adjustment in real time. Additionally, such mechanism allows for damage prevention and easier maintenance. (See Hong, Paragraphs [0041]-[0042]).
Johnson et al. (John) discloses a thermal solar energy capture and storage device. (See John, Abstract). John discloses utilizing the thermal energy to power a Stirling engine to generate electricity. (See John, Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the stored thermal energy of Kapteyn to drive a Stirling engine, as both references are directed to solar thermal storage to provide thermal energy to drive a thermal load. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a Stirling engine to drive a generator would be a simple substitution of on known thermal load for another that would yield the predictable result of efficiently driving a generator to generate electricity.
In Reference to Claim 8
The Kapteyn-Hong combination as modified by Johnson discloses:
Wherein the thermal storage is modular. (See Kapteyn, Column 14, Lines 30-39).
In Reference to Claim 9
The Kapteyn-Hong combination as modified by Johnson discloses:
Wherein the modular thermal storage comprise clay blocks. (See Kapteyn, Column 5, Lines 57-64).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that neither Schindler, nor Schindler in view of Johnson disclose each and every limitation of claim 1, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that neither Schindler, nor Schindler in view of Johnson disclose each and every limitation of claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that Schindler fails to teach or fairly suggest “a lens array on a frame supported by uprights to the frame that enables the frame to rotate about an axis longitudinal to the thermal storage module.”. Specifically, Applicant points to the instant specification paragraphs [0043]-[0045] which discuss the relationship of the lens array with respect to “a module” and/or “a solar collection module” and/or “a heat collection module”. Additionally, Applicant argues the relationship to “the module” and/or “a solar collection module” and/or “a heat collection module”, however, “the module” and/or “a solar collection module” and/or “a heat collection module” are stated in Applicant’s specification as comprising multiple components including those of which are already in claim 1 and tied to “The system” but separate from the “thermal storage module”. Therefore, it is unclear from Applicant’s specification as to the structural component of “a thermal storage module” as it appears to be claimed as a separate component and yet undefined by Applicant’s specification. As noted the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above, it is unclear as to what constitutes the thermal storage module as such a module is not explicitly disclosed in the specification and components which perform functions of thermal storage a later disclosed and not attributed to the thermal storage module. Accordingly, the claims are interpreted as best understood by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kurz, Riveros, Green, and Matalon show solar heat collection devices within the general state of the art of invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights