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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B, claims 1-2, 5-9, and 13-18 in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-4 and 10-12 are indicated by Applicant to be withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/27/2026.
Although Applicant indicated they have elected without traverse, Applicant argues that the restriction requirement fails to identify different fields of search for each species. However, it is noted that the identification of the different fields of search is not a requirement for restriction between species embodiments. Additionally, it is noted that the different species is such that Species A is directed to an outbuilding as shown in Figures 1-5 and as described in paragraphs [0041]-[0075], Species B is directed to a geodesic structure as shown in Figure 6 and as described in paragraphs [0060]-[0075], and Species C is directed to a ground mounted structure as shown in Figure 7 and as described in paragraphs [0076]-[0081], which have all been identified clearly in the restriction requirement mailed on 1/27/2026. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine that different fields of search are required for each invention when they are drastically different and do not share a common structure or purpose.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Additionally, claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species A or C (the base structure is a rectangular PV array formed by at least three angled facets) and Species C (the base structure is a frame formed by a network of interconnecting frame members), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/27/2026. It is noted that the base structure of elected Species B is a geodesic structure as stated in claim 5, such that it cannot be a rectangular PV array as recited in claim 6.
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, 2, 5, 8-9, and 13-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel of the PV array" in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no bifacial photovoltaic panel has been recited to be part of the PV array prior to the recitation of the limitation. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the sky” and “the ground” throughout the claim. However, nowhere does the claim set forth the location for the increased-yield solar energy station, such that it would be clear that there would be a sky or ground in which the limitations are referencing. The increased-yield solar energy station could be installed indoors and there would be no sky or ground present in the disclosed invention. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bifacial PV panel" in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel” has been previously recited. It is unclear which of the at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel is being particularly referenced by the limitation. Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bifacial PV panel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel” has been previously recited. It is unclear which of the at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel is being particularly referenced by the limitation. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the base structure…wherein a plurality of bifacial PV panels are positioned thereon" in lines 3-4. However, claim 1 from which claim 5 depends upon already recites a photovoltaic array mounted to the base structure and at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel, such that it is unclear if the previously recited at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel is encompassed by the plurality of bifacial PV panels in claim 5.
Claim 5 also recites “the plurality of polygonal PV panels” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no polygonal PV panels have been recited and only a network of interconnecting polygonal panels and a plurality of bifacial PV panels. Clarification is requested.
Claim 14 also recites “the interconnecting polygonal panels” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only at least one interconnecting polygonal panels was previously recited in claim 13 and nothing has been established that there is more than one. The same deficiency can be found in claim 15.
Additionally, claim 14 recites the limitation “an interior of the geodesic structure” and “an underside of the at least one bifacial PV panel”. However, claim 1 from which claim 14 depends upon already recited an interior portion of the base structure, which corresponds to the interior of the geodesic structure and a second side of the at least one bifacial PV panel, such that it appears the limitations are referencing the same things using different language. Clarification is requested.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the sky” and “the ground” throughout the claim. However, nowhere does the claim set forth the location for the increased-yield solar energy station, such that it would be clear that there would be a sky or ground in which the limitations are referencing. The increased-yield solar energy station could be installed indoors and there would be no sky or ground present in the disclosed invention. Clarification is requested.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel of the PV array" in the fourth clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no bifacial photovoltaic panel has been recited to be part of the PV array prior to the recitation of the limitation. Clarification is requested.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the bifacial PV panel" in the fourth and fifth clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only “at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel” has been previously recited. It is unclear which of the at least one bifacial photovoltaic panel is being particularly referenced by the limitation. Clarification is requested.
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) 1, 2, 5, 8-9, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez (ES 1305561; see English machine translation) in view of Lloveras et al. (ES 2274705; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Dominguez discloses an increased-yield solar energy station (1), comprising:
a base structure (dome 2) for contacting with the ground (see Figure 1);
an upper support structure (detachable metal profiles 12) of the base structure raised off of the ground ([0089]), the upper support structure for mounting a photovoltaic (PV) array (7) to the base structure ([0081]);
an interior portion of the base structure (see Figure 1); and
at least one photovoltaic (PV) panel of the PV array, the at least one PV panel mounted in a raised position relative to the upper support structure (as set forth above, the photovoltaic panels are mounted on the surface of the dome 2; [0081]), the at least one PV panel having a first side oriented to face toward the sky (see Figure 1), and a second side oriented to face away from the sky (see Figure 1).
Dominguez does not expressly disclose the at least one photovoltaic panel is a bifacial photovoltaic panel, and both the first and second sides of the bifacial PV panel having solar cells for collecting solar energy.
Lloveras discloses a dome-shaped structure supporting photovoltaic panels, wherein the photovoltaic panels can be bifacial or monofacial ([0006] and [0016]), such that it is well known in the art by one of ordinary skill in the art that bifacial PV panels have solar cells on both sides for collecting solar energy.
As Dominguez is not limited to any specific examples of photovoltaic panels to be used and as bifacial photovoltaic panels installed on a dome-shaped structure were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Lloveras above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any type of photovoltaic panel, including bifacial photovoltaic panels in the device of Dominguez. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
While modified Dominguez does not expressly disclose an interior portion of the base structure for at least partially shielding balance of system (BOS) components for the PV array from effects of weather, the reference discloses batteries (8) together with the electronic control components (9) and the measurement and efficiency software, are incorporated housed inside reinforced metal boxes (11) ([0087]; see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the metal boxes of modified Dominguez in the interior portion of the geodesic dome to protect the contents from the effects of weather.
Regarding claim 2, modified Dominguez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a solar reflective material (SRM) (metal box 11, as set forth above) reflecting sunlight onto the second side of the bifacial PV panel (sunlight would be reflected off of the metal box onto the inside surface of the bifacial PV panel).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dominguez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses 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 ([0089]; see Figure 1), wherein a plurality of bifacial PV panels are positioned thereon such that at any given daylight hour one or more of the plurality of polygonal PV panels is at or near an optimum solar angle (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dominguez 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 ([0044]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Dominguez 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 photovoltaic panels are incorporated based on the number and position and orientation according to the needs; [0042]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Dominguez 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 a geodesic structure ([0040]; as set forth above).
Regarding claim 16, modified Dominguez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a solar reflective material (SRM) is applied as a coating to a BOS component enclosure located at a locus of the geodesic structure (as set forth above, the BOS component enclosure can be made out of metal, which is a solar reflective material, and the outer surface of the metal box is a coating on the enclosure that forms the interior of the metal box).
Regarding claim 17, Dominguez discloses an increased-yield solar energy station (1), comprising:
a base structure (dome 2) for contacting with the ground (see Figure 1), the base structure being one of an outbuilding, a geodesic structure (see Figure 1), and a frame formed by a network of interconnecting frame members;
an upper support structure (detachable metal profiles 12) of the base structure raised off of the ground ([0089]), the upper support structure for mounting a photovoltaic (PV) array (7) to the base structure ([0081]);
an interior portion of the base structure (see Figure 1);
at least one photovoltaic (PV) panel of the PV array, the at least one PV panel mounted in a raised position relative to the upper support structure (as set forth above, the photovoltaic panels are mounted on the surface of the dome 2; [0081]), the at least one PV panel having a first side oriented to face toward the sky (see Figure 1), and a second side oriented to face away from the sky (see Figure 1);
a solar reflective material (SRM) (it is disclosed the support structure is made of detachable metal profiles, as set forth above, such that they are reflective) on the upper support structure, the SRM reflecting sunlight from the upper support structure onto the second side of the PV panel (as set forth above).
Dominguez does not expressly disclose the at least one photovoltaic panel is a bifacial photovoltaic panel, and both the first and second sides of the bifacial PV panel having solar cells for collecting solar energy.
Lloveras discloses a dome-shaped structure supporting photovoltaic panels, wherein the photovoltaic panels can be bifacial or monofacial ([0006] and [0016]), such that it is well known in the art by one of ordinary skill in the art that bifacial PV panels have solar cells on both sides for collecting solar energy.
As Dominguez is not limited to any specific examples of photovoltaic panels to be used and as bifacial photovoltaic panels installed on a dome-shaped structure were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Lloveras above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any type of photovoltaic panel, including bifacial photovoltaic panels in the device of Dominguez. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
While modified Dominguez does not expressly disclose an interior portion of the base structure for at least partially shielding balance of system (BOS) components for the PV array from effects of weather, the reference discloses batteries (8) together with the electronic control components (9) and the measurement and efficiency software, are incorporated housed inside reinforced metal boxes (11) ([0087]; see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the metal boxes of modified Dominguez in the interior portion of the geodesic dome to protect the contents from the effects of weather.
Regarding claim 18, modified Dominguez 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 (as set forth above) 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 (as set forth above).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominguez (ES 1305561; see English machine translation) in view of Lloveras et al. (ES 2274705; see English machine translation) in view of Hosking et al. (US 2012/0131861).
Regarding claim 14, modified Dominguez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the interconnecting polygonal panels of the geodesic structure are separated from one another at a distance such that sunlight passes into an interior of the geodesic structure to reach a BOS component enclosure at a locus of the geodesic structure and at least partially reflects onto an underside of the at least one bifacial PV panel.
Hosking discloses a geodesic dome structure, wherein the interconnecting polygonal panels of the geodesic structure are separated from one another at a distance such that sunlight passes into an interior of the geodesic structure ([0006] and [0076]; see Figures 2 and 14b).
As modified Dominguez is not limited to any specific examples of the geodesic structure and as geodesic structures having separated interconnected polygonal panels such that light passes into the interior of the structure were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Hosking above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any known configuration of geodesic structures, including one that have separated interconnected polygonal panels in the device of modified Dominguez. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
It is noted that with sunlight reaching the interior of the geodesic structure, the light would reach a BOS component enclosure at a locus of the geodesic structure and at least partially reflects onto an underside of the at least one bifacial PV panel, as set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Dominguez discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose 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.
Hosking discloses a geodesic dome structure, wherein the interconnecting polygonal panels of the geodesic structure are separated from one another at a distance that permits wind to pass between the interconnecting polygonal panels ([0006] and [0076]; see Figures 2 and 14b).
As modified Dominguez is not limited to any specific examples of the geodesic structure and as geodesic structures having separated interconnected polygonal panels such that wind can pass between the interconnecting polygonal panels were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Hosking above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any known configuration of geodesic structures, including one that have separated interconnected polygonal panels in the device of modified Dominguez. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
It is noted that the above-recited geodesic structure would allow wind to pass between the interconnecting polygonal panels and decrease effective wind load on the geodesic structure.
Conclusion
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