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 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.
(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, 2, 8, 9, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chentnik et al. (US 2020/0343852).
Regarding claim 1, Chentnik discloses an increased-yield solar energy station (10) configured for outdoor installation (see Figure 8), comprising:
a base structure (vertical support structure 11 and frame 60) for contacting with the ground (frame 60 is attached to collar 15, which is attached to vertical support structure 11 to the ground);
a photovoltaic (PV) array (14) formed by interconnecting panels ([0104]; see Figure 2);
an upper support structure (vertical support structure 11 and inner frame member 62) of the base structure raised off of the ground, the upper support structure for mounting the PV array to the base structure ([0114]);
an interior portion of the base structure at least partially shielded from effects of weather (see Figure 3); and
at least one bifacial photovoltaic (PV) panel in the PV array ([0022]), the at least one bifacial PV panel mounted in a raised position relative to the upper support structure (see Figure 6), the at least one bifacial PV panel having a first side oriented to face toward the sky, and a second side oriented to face away from the sky, both the first and second sides of the at least one bifacial PV panel having solar cells for collecting solar energy (see Figure 8);
wherein the interconnecting panels of the PV array are separated from one another at a distance such that sunlight passes into the interior portion of the base structure and reflects onto the second side of the at least one bifacial PV panel (it is disclosed there are gaps between the panels; [0027] and [0094]; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 2, Chentnik discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a solar reflective material (SRM) (81) reflecting sunlight onto the second side of the at least one bifacial PV panel (see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 8, Chentnik discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses an active solar tracker to track available sunlight for energy production by the PV array ([0066]).
Regarding claim 9, Chentnik discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a virtual solar tracker to track available sunlight for energy production by the PV array (it is disclosed the solar panels are designed based on air current and sun tracking for installation; [0021] and [0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Chentnik discloses an increased-yield solar energy station (10) configured for outdoor installation (see Figure 8), comprising:
a base structure (vertical support structure 11 and frame 60) for contacting with the ground (frame 60 is attached to collar 15, which is attached to vertical support structure 11 to the ground), the base structure being one of an outbuilding, a geodesic structure, and a frame formed by a network of interconnecting frame members (see Figures 2 and 6);
a photovoltaic (PV) array (14) formed by interconnecting panels ([0104]; see Figure 2);
an upper support structure (vertical support structure 11 and inner frame member 62) of the base structure raised off of the ground, the upper support structure for mounting the PV array to the base structure ([0114]);
an interior portion of the base structure at least partially shielded from effects of weather (see Figure 3); and
at least one bifacial photovoltaic (PV) panel in the PV array ([0022]), the at least one bifacial PV panel mounted in a raised position relative to the upper support structure (see Figure 6), the at least one bifacial PV panel having a first side oriented to face toward the sky, and a second side oriented to face away from the sky, both the first and second sides of the at least one bifacial PV panel having solar cells for collecting solar energy (see Figure 8); and
a solar reflective material (SRM) (Fresnel reflector 100) on the upper support structure (see Figure 10A), the SRM reflecting sunlight onto the second side of the at least one bifacial PV panel (see Figure 10A; [0122])
wherein the interconnecting panels of the PV array are separated from one another at a distance such that sunlight passes into the interior portion of the base structure and reflects onto the second side of the at least one bifacial PV panel (it is disclosed there are gaps between the panels; [0027] and [0094]; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Chentnik discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one bifacial PV panel is mounted above a top surface of the upper support structure at a distance such that sunlight reaches the solar cells on the second side of the at least one bifacial PV panel oriented to face away from the sky (see Figure 6).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cardoso (WO 2023/163609; see English equivalent EP 4485795).
Regarding claim 1, Cardoso discloses an increased-yield solar energy station configured for outdoor installation (see Figure 18), comprising:
a base structure (support platform 3 and support structure 21) for contacting with the ground (see Figure 18);
a photovoltaic (PV) array (1) formed by interconnecting panels (4);
an upper support structure (21) of the base structure raised off of the ground (see Figure 18), the upper support structure for mounting the PV array to the base structure (see Figure 18);
an interior portion of the base structure at least partially shielded from effects of weather (see Figures 18-20); and
at least one bifacial photovoltaic (PV) panel in the PV array (it is disclosed in claim 9 that there is an indirect solar area that corresponds to light reflected by the implantation area Ai, such that the photovoltaic panel would be bifacial), the at least one bifacial PV panel mounted in a raised position relative to the upper support structure (see Figure 18), the at least one bifacial PV panel having a first side oriented to face toward the sky, and a second side oriented to face away from the sky (see Figure 18), both the first and second sides of the PV array having solar cells for collecting solar energy (as set forth above; [0096] and [0100]; see Figure 18);
wherein the interconnecting panels of the PV array are separated from one another at a distance (ventilation parts 5 provides a separation in which light passes through) such that sunlight passes into the interior portion of the base structure and reflects onto the second side of the at least one bifacial PV panel (as set forth above; see, for example, Figure 8).
Regarding claim 2, Cardoso discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a solar reflective material (SRM) reflecting sunlight onto the second side of the at least one bifacial PV panel (as set forth above, the implantation area Ai).
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(s) 5, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso (WO 2023/163609; see English equivalent EP 4485795) in view of Kwon (KR 2022-0075841; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Cardoso discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the solar energy station can be in the shape of a dome ([0035]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the base structure is a geodesic structure formed by a network of interconnecting polygonal panels that form a spherical or semi-spherical shell over the interior portion, wherein the at least one bifacial PV panel is positioned thereon such that at any given daylight hour one or more of the polygonal panels is at or near an optimum solar angle.
Kwon discloses a geodesic dome structure (see Figure 1) comprising triangular PV panels (100; S1 and S2), where dome shaped structures increase light concentration efficiency and provide an aesthetic effect as a structure ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as selecting a geodesic dome structure for the dome shape in Cardoso, as taught by Kwon, such that it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the geodesic shape increase light concentration efficiency for photovoltaic systems and provide an aesthetic structure, as set forth above. It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 13, Cardoso discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one bifacial PV panel forms at least one interconnecting polygonal panels of in the shape of a dome ([0035]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the dome is a geodesic structure.
Kwon discloses a geodesic dome structure (see Figure 1) comprising triangular PV panels (100; S1 and S2), where dome shaped structures increase light concentration efficiency and provide an aesthetic effect as a structure ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as selecting a geodesic dome structure for the dome shape in Cardoso, as taught by Kwon, such that it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the geodesic shape increase light concentration efficiency for photovoltaic systems and provide an aesthetic structure, as set forth above. It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 15, modified Cardoso discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the interconnecting polygonal panels are separated from one another at a distance that permits wind to pass between the interconnecting polygonal panels and decrease effective wind load on the geodesic structure (it is disclosed the panels are separated by a gap 5 to reduce wind load; [0043]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso (WO 2023/163609; see English equivalent EP 4485795) in view of Kwon (KR 2022-0075841; see English machine translation) in view of Chentnik et al. (US 2020/0343852).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cardoso discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose a solar reflective material (SRM) is applied as a coating to at least one component located at a locus of the geodesic structure.
Chentnik discloses the use of reflective paint applied to the native surface of the location around the structure to reflect sunlight to be directed to the bottom surface of the bifacial solar panels ([0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as applying a coating of reflective material to the ground at a locus of the geodesic structure in the device of modified Cardoso, as taught by Chentnik, so that energy harvesting ability of each of the bifacial solar panels can be increased and year-round energy harvest production can be achieved, as disclosed by Chentnik ([0116]). It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 15-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights