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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a body (102) is having a first end”. This passage is grammatically incorrect but would be correct with the deletion of the word “is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “wherein shape of body”. This passage is grammatically incorrect but would be correct with the insertion of the word “the”, after the word, “wherein”, and before the word, “shape”. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant recites, “wherein the outer surface of the body (104) is provided with snap lock to fix the body on the base cap”. This passage is grammatically incorrect but would be correct if the word “a” was inserted before the phrase, “snap lock”.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “wherein weight percentage of fillers”. This passage is grammatically incorrect but would be correct with the insertion of the word “the”, after the word, “wherein”, and before the word, “weight”. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant recites, “second end of body”. This passage is grammatically incorrect but would be correct with the insertion of the word “the” in front of the word “body”. Appropriate action is required.
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 1-10 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 Claim 1, Applicant recites, “wherein the system (100) comprises”. This term lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if this is referencing back to the Total Internal Photonic Absorption Hexagonal System or a different system. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant associates the numeral 102 with both the body, the first end, and the second end of the body lending ambiguity to the claim as its unclear if the recited structure is reciting to the same element. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “optionally a biconcave lens (108) is provided”. Its unclear if the biconcave lens is present or not. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the solar cell strips”. Its unclear if these solar cell strips are referring to the plurality of solar cell strips or are separate distinct elements. Thus, the recitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 3, Applicant recites, “is selected from a group of perovskite or monocrystalline and multijunction panels”. Its unclear if the Markush group is perovskites, monocrystalline or multijunction panels, or if the Markush group represents perovskites, or monocrystalline multijunction panels. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 4, Applicant recites in preceding claim 1, “a plurality of solar cell strips (104)”, and then in claim 4, “the outer surface of the body (104)”. Its unclear how both of these distinct elements can correspond to the same numeral. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant recites, “is fabricated from a plastic material optionally having fillers of high conductivity material”. Its unclear if the fillers are present or not. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “used in plastic”. Its unclear if this is referencing back to the plastic material or if a different plastic is being limited. Thus, the recitation lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant associates the numeral 102 with both the body, the first end, and the second end of the body lending ambiguity to the claim as its unclear if the recited structure is reciting to the same element. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant recites, “the coupling means”. Its unclear if this corresponds to both coupling means associated with the first end and second end of the body or just one of the coupling means associated with either the first end or second end of the body. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Watters (US 2010/0089436 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Banerjee teaches a total internal photonic absorption hexagonal system for converting solar energy into electricity (Figs. 3-4 & Abstract), wherein the system comprises:
a body having a first end (Fig. 2, #106a top surface), a second end (Fig. 2, #106a bottom surface), an internal surface (Fig. 3, see inner surface of 106a that incident light “bounces” off); and an external surface (Fig. 3, outside surface of 106a), wherein the first end is open to allow light to pass through (Fig. 3, #320 impinges downward through the opening in the first end of 106a);
a plurality of solar cell strips is providing on the internal surface of the body forming a hexagonal pattern (Fig. 4, #412a-f & Paragraph 0049);
a dome with staggered steps is provided at the first end of the body wherein the dome with staggered steps refracts incoming light into the opening provided at the first end of the body (Figs. 1-3, #104a & Paragraph 0033);
a mirror provided at the second end of the body to reflect the incoming light towards the solar cell strips (Figs. 2-3, #204 & Paragraph 0043);
a base cap provided at the second end of the body to provide a flat bottom (Fig. 4, staring downwards into the “z” direction, there is a base plate to which the body is arranged flat and orthogonal).
Banerjee does not disclose that the mirror is conical in shape.
Watters discloses a mirror that is conical in shape (Fig. 2, #16 & Paragraph 0051). Watters discloses that this type of reflector can greatly increase the amount of solar energy impinging on solar panels (Paragraph 0052). Watters discloses that the solar panels may be in a hexagonal pattern (Paragraph 0062). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a mirror that is conical in shape in order to greatly increase the amount of solar energy impinging on the plurality of solar cell strips of Banerjee’s system.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Watters (US 2010/0089436 A1) in view of Hsu et al. (US 2018/0278203 A1).
In view of Claim 2, Banerjee and Watters are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Banerjee discloses that the shape of the body is a hexagonal tube (Fig. 2, #106a) but does not disclose that it unfolds to form a flat panel.
Hsu discloses a shape of a body that is a hexagonal tube that can unfold into a panel that allows interconnection of multiple solar power generation subassemblies with convenient connections (Fig. 1, #5 via #52 – Paragraph 0028-0029). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the hexagonal tube of Hsu et al. that is capable of unfolding into a flat panel for the advantage of having a configuration that allows interconnection of multiple solar power generation subassemblies with convenient connections.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Watters (US 2010/0089436 A1) in view of Gu et al. (US 2017/0352771 A1).
In view of Claim 3, Banerjee and Watters are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Banerjee does not disclose that the solar cell strips are multijunction panels.
Gu et al. discloses that using multijunction cells can reducing material and processing costs of solar cells while improving conversion efficiency (Paragraph 0002). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use multijunction cells as the material for the plurality of solar cell strips of Banerjee for the advantages of reducing material and processing costs while improving conversion efficiency.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Watters (US 2010/0089436 A1) in view of Zeng (CN-108631707-A). Zeng is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 4, Banerjee and Watters are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Banerjee does not disclose that the outer surface of the body is provided with a snap lock to fix the body on the base cap.
Zeng discloses a configuration where an outer surface of a body (bottom surface) is provided with a snap lock to fix the body on the base cap (Fig. 2, sliding block 20 & Page 3, Lines 10-35). Zeng discloses that this configuration enables greatly improved solar coverage and angle adjustment thus having improved light energy conversion efficiency (Page 4, Last Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Banerjee’s outer surface of the body provided with a snap lock to fix the body on the base cap for the advantages of having greatly improved solar coverage, and angle adjustment thus improved light energy conversion efficiency.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Watters (US 2010/0089436 A1) in view of Budhdeo (GB 2586003 A).
In view of Claims 5-6, Banerjee and Watters are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Banerjee is silent on the body being fabricated from a plastic material.
Budhedeo discloses that a body can be made of a plastic material that has the feature of being waterproof (Page 9, Lines 30-32). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use a plastic material to form the body of Banerjee for the advantage of using a material that is waterproof.
In regards to the plastic material “optionally having fillers”. This limitation has been introduced as being optional and thus is not required in the scope of the claims.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Watters (US 2010/0089436 A1) in view of Yang (CN-109245615-A) in view of Todorf et al. (US 4,830,678). Yang is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 7, Banerjee and Watters are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Banerjee discloses that the dome with staggered steps is provided on the body (Fig. 2, #104a & Paragraph 0033 – Fresnel lens comprise staggered steps).
Banerjee is silent on the dome being provided with a dome gasket and the base cap provided with a base gasket to make the system airtight.
Yang discloses that a dome is provided with a dome gasket for the advantage of preventing smashing between adjacent components and protects the dome and a body (Page 1, last paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provided the dome with a dome gasket for the advantages of preventing smashing between adjacent components and protecting the components.
Todorf teaches a base cap provided with a base gasket that inherently makes the associated system airtight (Fig. 1, #58 which encircles the bottom base cap material via stud #52 – Column 4, Lines 15-33). Todorf discloses that this configuration conveniently aligns a solar cell and secondary lens (Column 1, Lines 35-39), while protecting solar concentrators that are often exposed to severe ambient weathering conditions in geographic regions of high insolation (Column 1, Lines 15-34). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to doped the base cap to have a base gasket to make the system of Banerjee airtight for the advantage or protecting the system from severe ambient weather conditions while also allowing for a configuration that conveniently aligns a solar cell and secondary lens.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Watters (US 2010/0089436 A1) in view of Nagasaka et al. (US 2007/0114553 A1).
In view of Claim 8, Banerjee and Watters are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Banerjee does not explicitly teach that the body is provided with a plurality of apertures to provide electrical connections.
Nagasaka et al. teaches that the bottom of a body is provided with a plurality of apertures to provide electrical connections (Fig. 1, #16/#18 wiring is outputted through apertures – Paragraph 0064 – dedicated hole). Nagasaka et al. teaches that this configuration allows excellent heat dissipation properties by positioning the wires underneath the body (Paragraph 0088). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the body provided with a plurality of apertures to provide electrical connections in order to enable a configuration that allows excellent heat dissipation.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Watters (US 2010/0089436 A1) in view of Seo et al. (US 2011/0030764 A1) in view of Zeng (CN-108631707-A). Zeng is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 9, Banerjee and Watters are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Banerjee does not explicitly teach that the dome with staggered steps, base cap, first end, and second end of body are provided with coupling means to detachably attach the dome with staggered steps with the first end of the body and detachably attach the base cap with the second end of the body.
Seo et al. teaches a base cap and second end of a body are provided such that the base cap can be detachably attached with a second end of a body (Fig. 1, #21-22/#26 attached via #41/#46 – Paragraph 0094-0096). Seo et al. teaches that this configuration has excellent heat dissipation efficiency (Paragraph 0063). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the base cap and second end of a body are provided such that the base cap can be detachably attached with a second end of a body in Banerjee for the advantages of having a configuration with excellent heat dissipation efficiency.
Zeng discloses a dome with coupling means to detachably attach the dome to a first end of a body that increases mounting stability (Fig. 1, #14/#15 – Page 3, Lines 36-43). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the staggered dome of Banerjee have coupling means to detachably attach the staggered dome to the first end of a body for the advantage of increasing mounting stability of the staggered dome.
In view of Claim 10, Banerjee, Watters, Seo et al. and Zeng are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Seo discloses that the coupling means are threaded coupling or nuts and bolts (Fig. 1, #21-22/#26 attached via #41/#46 – Paragraph 0094-0096).
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budhdeo (IN 202221064716 A) in view of Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
In view of Claim 1, Budhdeo discloses a total internal photonic absorption system for converting solar energy into electricity (Fig. 2 – Paragraph 0024) that comprises: a body having a first end a second end, an internal surface and an external surface wherein the first end is open to allow light to pass through(Fig. 2, #102), a plurality of solar cell strips providing on the internal surface of the body forming a pattern (Fig. 2, #104), a dome provided at the first end of the body that refracts incoming light into the opening provided at the first end of the body (Fig. 2, #106 – Paragraph 0024), a biconcave lens provided at the first end of the body to refract light coming from the dome towards the solar cell strips (Fig. 2, #108), a conical mirror provided at the second end of the body to reflect the incoming light towards the solar cell strips (Fig. 2, #110), and a base cap provided at the second end of the body to provide a flat bottom (Fig. 2, #112).
Budhdeo does not disclose that the dome is staggered or the plurality of solar cell strips form a hexagonal pattern.
Banerjee discloses a dome that is staggered (Fig. 2, #104a) and that a plurality of solar cell strips that form a hexagonal pattern are designed such that incident solar radiation is optimized (Paragraph 0038). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the dome staggered and the plurality of solar cell strips formed into a hexagonal pattern for the advantage of optimizing the incident solar radiation.
In view of Claim 3, Budhdeo and Banerjee are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Budhdeo discloses that the solar cell strips are selected from monocrystalline or multijunction (Paragraph 0026).
In view of Claims 5-6, Budhdeo and Banerjee are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Budhdeo teaches that the body is fabricated from plastic material having fillers such as aluminum, copper, silver, graphene, graphite with a weight percentage of 1-5 weight percent (claims 5-6).
In view of Claim 7, Budhdeo and Banerjee are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Budhdeo disclose that the dome is provided with a dome gasket and the base cap is provided with a base gasket (claim 7). Banerjee was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious for the dome to be staggered.
In view of Claim 8, Budhdeo and Banerjee are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Budhdeo discloses the body is provided with a plurality of apertures to provide electrical connections (claim 8).
In view of Claims 9-10, Budhdeo and Banerjee are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Budhdeo discloses that the dope is provided with coupling means to detachably attach the dome to the first end of the body and detachable attach the base cap with the second end of th4e body and the coupling means is selected from snap lock, thread coupling, nuts and bolt coupling and adhesive coupling (claims 9-10).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budhdeo (IN 202221064716 A) in view of Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Hsu et al. (US 2018/0278203 A1).
In view of Claim 2, Budhdeo and Banerjee are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Banerjee was relied upon to disclose that the shape of the body would be a hexagonal tube but modified Budhdeo does not disclose that the body unfolds to form a flat panel.
Hsu discloses a shape of a body that is a hexagonal tube that can unfold into a panel that allows interconnection of multiple solar power generation subassemblies with convenient connections (Fig. 1, #5 via #52 – Paragraph 0028-0029). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the hexagonal tube of Hsu et al. that is capable of unfolding into a flat panel for the advantage of having a configuration that allows interconnection of multiple solar power generation subassemblies with convenient connections.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee (US 2025/0350233 A1) in view of Watters (US 2010/0089436 A1) in view of Zeng (CN-108631707-A). Zeng is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 4, Budhdeo and Banerjee are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Budhdeo does not disclose that the outer surface of the body is provided with a snap lock to fix the body on the base cap.
Zeng discloses a configuration where an outer surface of a body (bottom surface) is provided with a snap lock to fix the body on the base cap (Fig. 2, sliding block 20 & Page 3, Lines 10-35). Zeng discloses that this configuration enables greatly improved solar coverage and angle adjustment thus having improved light energy conversion efficiency (Page 4, Last Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Budhdeo outer surface of the body provided with a snap lock to fix the body on the base cap for the advantages of having greatly improved solar coverage, and angle adjustment thus improved light energy conversion efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights