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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 2011/0000535 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 208874502 U, cited on 6/20/25 IDS, see equivalent US 2019/0319576 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Davidson discloses a curved solar panel (Figures 16 and 38; [0157] – [0159]) comprising a crest portion and a trough portion that are sequentially connected in a first direction ([0031] discloses ridges and troughs; 123 and 124 in Fig. 22), wherein the curved solar panel further comprises: a power generation area provided with a power generation layer (41 in Fig. 9; [0140]); and a first non-power generation area ([0140] discloses portion 42; right side of Fig. 9) and a second non-power generation area ([0140] discloses narrow peripheral band 43; left side of Fig. 9) that are located at two opposite sides of the power generation area in the first direction, respectively (42 and 43 in relation to 41 in Fig. 9), an upper part of the first non-power generation area being configured to overlap with the second non-power generation area of an adjacent curved solar panel ([0141]).
While Davidson does depict a width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction (width of 42 in Fig. 9) is greater than a width of the second non-power generation area (width of 43 in Fig. 9) of an adjacent curved solar panel ([0141]), and further discloses a thickness of the curved solar panel is ([0148] - [0153]; Fig. 27A), Davidson does not explicitly disclose a width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction is greater than or equal to a width of the second non-power generation area in the first direction and a thickness of the curved solar panel.
Zhu discloses a curved solar panel comprising a crest portion and a trough portion that are sequentially connected in a first direction (Fig. 5), and further discloses a relationship between the overlapping area of adjacent solar power generation tiles and the ability to prevent entry of rainwater and saving the use of waterproof rubber strips ([0032]).
As the degree of power generation and degree of moisture protection (Zhu – [0032]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction, with said degree of power generation decreasing and said degree of moisture protection increasing as the width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction is increased, the precise width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed width of the first power non-power generation area in the first direction (and resulting size relationship with the second non-power generation area and thickness of the curved solar panel) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction in the apparatus of Davidson to obtain the desired balance between the degree of power generation and the degree of moisture protection (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose the first non-power generation area is located at the trough portion; and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion.
Zhu discloses a curved solar panel comprising a crest portion and a trough portion that are sequentially connected in a first direction (Fig. 5), and further discloses a first non-power generation area located at the trough portion (shown in annotated Fig. 5 below), and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion (left 32 in Fig. 1; location depicted in annotated Fig. 5 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the crest portion, because as evidenced by Zhu, the configuration amounts to the use of a known structural arrangement in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the first non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the crest portion based on the teaching of Zhu.
It is further noted that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
[AltContent: textbox (second non-power generation area in crest portion)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first non-power generation area in trough portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
107
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Davidson further discloses a front panel (Davidson - 48 in Fig. 42; [0142]) and a back panel (Davidson - 11 in Fig. 42; [0142]), the power generation layer being sandwiched between the front panel and the back panel (Davidson – 41 in Fig. 42; [0142]), and the back panel, the power generation layer, and the front panel being stacked in sequence (Davidson – 11 in relation to 41 and 48 in Fig. 42; [0142]).
Regarding claim 4, Davidson discloses a photovoltaic array ([0159]; Fig. 38) comprising: a plurality of curved solar panels (solar panels with 11a and 11b, respectively, as depicted in Fig. 38), each of the plurality of curved solar panels comprising a crest portion and a trough portion that are sequentially connected in a first direction ([0031] discloses ridges and troughs; 123 and 124 in Fig. 22), wherein each of the plurality of curved solar panels further comprises: a power generation area provided with a power generation layer (41 in Fig. 9; [0140]); and a first non-power generation area ([0140] discloses portion 42; right side of Fig. 9) and a second non-power generation area ([0140] discloses narrow peripheral band 43; left side of Fig. 9) that are located at two opposite sides of the power generation area in the first direction, respectively (42 and 43 in relation to 41 in Fig. 9), an upper part of the first non-power generation area being configured to overlap with the second non-power generation area of an adjacent curved solar panel ([0141]).
While Davidson does depict a width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction (width of 42 in Fig. 9) is greater than a width of the second non-power generation area (width of 43 in Fig. 9) of an adjacent curved solar panel ([0141]), and further discloses a thickness of the curved solar panel is ([0148] - [0153]; Fig. 27A), Davidson does not explicitly disclose a width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction is greater than or equal to a width of the second non-power generation area in the first direction and a thickness of the curved solar panel.
Zhu discloses a curved solar panel comprising a crest portion and a trough portion that are sequentially connected in a first direction (Fig. 5), and further discloses a relationship between the overlapping area of adjacent solar power generation tiles and the ability to prevent entry of rainwater and saving the use of waterproof rubber strips ([0032]).
As the degree of power generation and degree of moisture protection (Zhu – [0032]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction, with said degree of power generation decreasing and said degree of moisture protection increasing as the width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction is increased, the precise width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed width of the first power non-power generation area in the first direction (and resulting size relationship with the second non-power generation area and thickness of the curved solar panel) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the width of the first non-power generation area in the first direction in the apparatus of Davidson to obtain the desired balance between the degree of power generation and the degree of moisture protection (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
While modified Davidson does disclose in the first direction, the upper part of the first non-power generation area (Davidson – upper part of 42 in Fig. 9) of each of the plurality of curved solar panels overlaps with the second non-power generation area (Davidson – left side 43 in Fig. 9) of an adjacent one of the plurality of curved solar panels to form a first overlapping portion, modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose an overlapping width of the first overlapping portion of any two adjacent curved solar panels of the plurality of curved solar panels in the first direction is greater than or equal to the sum of the width of the first non-power generation area and the width of the second non-power generation area divided by 2.
Zhu discloses a curved solar panel comprising a crest portion and a trough portion that are sequentially connected in a first direction (Fig. 5), and further discloses a relationship between the overlapping area of adjacent solar power generation tiles and the ability to prevent entry of rainwater and saving the use of waterproof rubber strips ([0032]).
As the degree of power generation and degree of moisture protection (Zhu – [0032]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said overlapping width of the first overlapping portion in the first direction, with said degree of power generation decreasing and said degree of moisture protection increasing as the overlapping width of the first overlapping portion in the first direction is increased, the precise overlapping width of the first overlapping portion in the first direction would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed overlapping width of the first overlapping portion in the first direction (and resulting size relationship with the widths of the first and second non-power generation areas) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the overlapping width of the first overlapping portion in the first direction in the apparatus of modified Davidson to obtain the desired balance between the degree of power generation and the degree of moisture protection (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose the first non-power generation area is located at the trough portion; and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion.
Zhu discloses a curved solar panel comprising a crest portion and a trough portion that are sequentially connected in a first direction (Fig. 5), and further discloses a first non-power generation area located at the trough portion (shown in annotated Fig. 5 above), and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion (left 32 in Fig. 1; location depicted in annotated Fig. 5 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the crest portion, because as evidenced by Zhu, the configuration amounts to the use of a known structural arrangement in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the first non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the crest portion based on the teaching of Zhu.
It is further noted that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 5, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Davidson further discloses each of the plurality of curved solar panels further comprises a third non-power generation area (Davidson – 43 at the bottom of 10 in Fig. 9) and a fourth non-power generation area (Davidson – area of substrate 11 above 41 in Fig. 9) that are located at two opposite sides of the power generation area in a second direction different from the first direction, respectively (Davidson – 43 at the bottom of 10 and area of substrate 11 above 41 in relation to 41 in Fig. 9), the first non-power generation area, the third non-power generation area, the second non-power generation area, and the fourth non-power generation area being sequentially connected and surrounding the power generation area (Davidson – 42, area of substrate 11 above 41, 43 at left portion of 10, and 43 at bottom portion of 10 in Fig. 9 in relation to 41);
While modified Davidson does disclose, in the second direction, and upper part of the third non-power generation area of each of the plurality of curved solar panels overlaps with the fourth non-power generation area of an adjacent one of the plurality of curved solar panels to form a second overlapping portion (Davidson – Fig. 24; [0167]); modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose an overlapping width of the second overlapping portion of any two adjacent curved solar panels of the plurality of curved solar panels in the second direction is less than or equal to a width of the third non-power generation area in the second direction and the thickness of the curved solar panel.
Zhu discloses a curved solar panel (Fig. 5) and further discloses a relationship between the overlapping area of adjacent solar power generation tiles and the ability to prevent entry of rainwater and saving the use of waterproof rubber strips ([0032]).
As the degree of power generation and degree of moisture protection (Zhu – [0032]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction, with said degree of power generation decreasing and said degree of moisture protection increasing as the overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction is increased, the precise overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction (and resulting size relationship with the width of the third non-power generation area in the second direction and the thickness of the curved solar panel) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction in the apparatus of modified Davidson to obtain the desired balance between the degree of power generation and the degree of moisture protection (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the overlapping width of the second overlapping portion of any two adjacent curved solar panels of the plurality of curved solar panels in the second direction such that the overlapping width is less than or equal to a width of the third non-power generation area in the second direction and the thickness of the curved solar panel, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 6, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose cross-sections of the crest portion and the trough portion that are perpendicular to the second direction are each a semicircle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the crest and trough portions of modified Davidson such that cross-sections of the crest portion and the trough portion that are perpendicular to the second direction are each a semicircle because such a modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a predetermined angle between the photovoltaic array and a horizontal surface is defined as ɵ; and an actual angle between a virtual surface where a center of the semicircle of each of the crest portion and the trough portion is located and the horizontal surface is defined as ɵ1, where ɵ1- ɵ ≤ 1°” is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and limitations directed to the manner in which a product is made are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 11, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Davidson further discloses a front panel (Davidson - 48 in Fig. 42; [0142]) and a back panel (Davidson - 11 in Fig. 42; [0142]), the power generation layer being sandwiched between the front panel and the back panel (Davidson – 41 in Fig. 42; [0142]), and the back panel, the power generation layer, and the front panel being stacked in sequence (Davidson – 11 in relation to 41 and 48 in Fig. 42; [0142]).
Claims 7, 9, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 2011/0000535 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 208874502 U, cited on 6/20/25 IDS, see equivalent US 2019/0319576 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (US 2019/0214939 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose a plurality of voltage-current adjustment units, each of the plurality of voltage-current adjustment units being connected in series with a corresponding curved solar panel of the plurality of curved solar panels.
Hall discloses a photovoltaic array ([0002]) and further discloses a plurality of voltage-current adjustment units ([0087] L1-3; it is noted that with regard to the limitation “voltage-current adjustment,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115), each of the plurality of voltage-current adjustment units being connected in series with a corresponding solar panel ([0097]; Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of voltage-current adjustment units, as disclosed by Hall, each connected in series with a corresponding curved solar panel of the plurality of curved solar panels of modified Davidson, because as taught by Hall, electronic controls of the voltage and current of each PV module may be incorporated into each PV module’s internal circuitry ([0024]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Davidson further discloses a positive combiner box and a negative combiner box (Davidson – Fig. 43 depicts boxes connected to 49 and 50; [0143]), a positive electrode of each of the plurality of curved solar panels being electrically connected to the positive combiner box, and a negative electrode of each of the plurality of curved solar panels being electrically connected to the negative combiner box (Davidson – [0143]; 49 and 50 in Fig. 43).
Regarding claim 12, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Davidson further discloses a solar energy system (Davidson – Fig. 44).
Modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose the solar energy system comprising an energy storage device; and the photovoltaic array being electrically connected to the energy storage device for supplying electric energy to the energy storage device.
Hall discloses a photovoltaic array ([0002]) and further discloses a photovoltaic array being electrically connected to an energy storage device for supplying electric energy to the energy storage device ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to electrically connect the photovoltaic array of modified Davidson to an energy storage device, as disclosed by Hall, because as evidenced by Hall, the use of a photovoltaic array to supply electric energy to an energy storage device amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using the photovoltaic array of modified Davidson to supply electric energy to an energy storage device, based on the teaching of Hall.
Regarding claim 14, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Davidson further discloses each of the plurality of curved solar panels further comprises a third non-power generation area (Davidson – 43 at the bottom of 10 in Fig. 9) and a fourth non-power generation area (Davidson – area of substrate 11 above 41 in Fig. 9) that are located at two opposite sides of the power generation area in a second direction different from the first direction, respectively (Davidson – 43 at the bottom of 10 and area of substrate 11 above 41 in relation to 41 in Fig. 9), the first non-power generation area, the third non-power generation area, the second non-power generation area, and the fourth non-power generation area being sequentially connected and surrounding the power generation area (Davidson – 42, area of substrate 11 above 41, 43 at left portion of 10, and 43 at bottom portion of 10 in Fig. 9 in relation to 41);
While modified Davidson does disclose, in the second direction, and upper part of the third non-power generation area of each of the plurality of curved solar panels overlaps with the fourth non-power generation area of an adjacent one of the plurality of curved solar panels to form a second overlapping portion (Davidson – Fig. 24; [0167]); modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose an overlapping width of the second overlapping portion of any two adjacent curved solar panels of the plurality of curved solar panels in the second direction is less than or equal to a width of the third non-power generation area in the second direction and the thickness of the curved solar panel.
Zhu discloses a curved solar panel (Fig. 5) and further discloses a relationship between the overlapping area of adjacent solar power generation tiles and the ability to prevent entry of rainwater and saving the use of waterproof rubber strips ([0032]).
As the degree of power generation and degree of moisture protection (Zhu – [0032]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction, with said degree of power generation decreasing and said degree of moisture protection increasing as the overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction is increased, the precise overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction (and resulting size relationship with the width of the third non-power generation area in the second direction and the thickness of the curved solar panel) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the overlapping width of the second overlapping portion in the second direction in the apparatus of modified Davidson to obtain the desired balance between the degree of power generation and the degree of moisture protection (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the overlapping width of the second overlapping portion of any two adjacent curved solar panels of the plurality of curved solar panels in the second direction such that the overlapping width is less than or equal to a width of the third non-power generation area in the second direction and the thickness of the curved solar panel, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 15, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose cross-sections of the crest portion and the trough portion that are perpendicular to the second direction are each a semicircle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the crest and trough portions of modified Davidson such that cross-sections of the crest portion and the trough portion that are perpendicular to the second direction are each a semicircle because such a modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a predetermined angle between the photovoltaic array and a horizontal surface is defined as ɵ; and an actual angle between a virtual surface where a center of the semicircle of each of the crest portion and the trough portion is located and the horizontal surface is defined as ɵ1, where ɵ1- ɵ ≤ 1°” is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and limitations directed to the manner in which a product is made are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose a plurality of voltage-current adjustment units, each of the plurality of voltage-current adjustment units being connected in series with a corresponding curved solar panel of the plurality of curved solar panels.
Hall discloses a photovoltaic array ([0002]) and further discloses a plurality of voltage-current adjustment units ([0087] L1-3; it is noted that with regard to the limitation “voltage-current adjustment,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115), each of the plurality of voltage-current adjustment units being connected in series with a corresponding solar panel ([0097]; Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of voltage-current adjustment units, as disclosed by Hall, each connected in series with a corresponding curved solar panel of the plurality of curved solar panels of modified Davidson, because as taught by Hall, electronic controls of the voltage and current of each PV module may be incorporated into each PV module’s internal circuitry ([0024]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Davidson further discloses a positive combiner box and a negative combiner box (Davidson – Fig. 43 depicts boxes connected to 49 and 50; [0143]), a positive electrode of each of the plurality of curved solar panels being electrically connected to the positive combiner box, and a negative electrode of each of the plurality of curved solar panels being electrically connected to the negative combiner box (Davidson – [0143]; 49 and 50 in Fig. 43).
Regarding claim 20, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Davidson further discloses a front panel (Davidson - 48 in Fig. 42; [0142]) and a back panel (Davidson - 11 in Fig. 42; [0142]), the power generation layer being sandwiched between the front panel and the back panel (Davidson – 41 in Fig. 42; [0142]), and the back panel, the power generation layer, and the front panel being stacked in sequence (Davidson – 11 in relation to 41 and 48 in Fig. 42; [0142]).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 2011/0000535 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 208874502 U, cited on 6/20/25 IDS, see equivalent US 2019/0319576 A1) further in view of Hall et al. (US 2019/0214939 A1) as applied to claims 7 and 16 above, and further in view of Britt (US 2019/0379322 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations
as set forth above.
Modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose curved solar panels of the plurality of curved solar panels are oriented in a same direction, and the curved solar panels oriented in the same direction are connected in series; and curved solar panels of the plurality of curved solar panels are oriented in different directions, and the plurality of curved solar panels oriented in the different directions are connected in parallel.
Britt discloses a photovoltaic array (abstract) and further discloses PV shingles 30 may be connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series and parallel ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was filed to connect the plurality of curved solar panels of modified Davidson in series in the first direction, and in parallel in the second direction, because as evidenced by Britt, connecting PV shingles of a photovoltaic array in series and parallel amounts to a known electrical configuration in the art, and based on the teaching of Britt, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when electrically connecting the solar panels of modified Davidson in series and parallel.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to electrically connect the solar panels of modified Davidson in series in the first direction and in parallel in the second direction, because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 2011/0000535 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (CN 208874502 U, cited on 6/20/25 IDS, see equivalent US 2019/0319576 A1) further in view of Hall et al. (US 2019/0214939 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Osborne et al. (US 2020/0395759 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose a controller having an end electrically connected to the photovoltaic array and another end electrically connected to each of the energy storage device and a power grid, the controller being configured to control the photovoltaic array to supply the electric energy to the energy storage device and/or the power grid.
Osborne discloses a solar power system and further discloses a controller having an end electrically connected to the photovoltaic array and another end electrically connected to each of the energy storage device and a power grid ([0040] discloses central control circuit 114’), the controller being configured to control the photovoltaic array to supply the electric energy to the energy storage device and the power grid ([0040] L7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a controller, as disclosed by Osborne, in the apparatus of modified Davidson, because as taught by Osborne, the control circuit is configured to prioritize power requirements of the loads and variably allocate power from the solar array among the loads according to the prioritized power requirements of the loads ([0040]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the left non-power generation area is located both at the trough portion and at the crest portion, while the right non-power generation area is located only at the crest portion. Applicant further argues that the claimed invention discloses an arrangement in which one of the first and second non-power generation areas is located only at the trough portion, and the other of the first and second non-power generation areas is located only at the crest portion.
In response to Applicant’s argument, claims 1 and 4 recite “the first non-power
generation area is located at the trough portion; and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion,” which does not require an arrangement in which the first non-power generation area is located only at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area is located only at the crest portion.
It is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., the first non-power generation area is located only at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area is located only at the crest portion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that even if one skilled in the art were to combine Davidson with Zhu, the combination would fail to disclose or suggest the specific structural arrangement recited in amended claim 1, as Zhu merely provides a different structural arrangement without teaching or motivating the specific modification to Davidson.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, modified Davidson does not explicitly disclose the first non-power generation area is located at the trough portion; and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion. Zhu discloses a curved solar panel comprising a crest portion and a trough portion that are sequentially connected in a first direction (Fig. 5), and further discloses a first non-power generation area located at the trough portion (shown in annotated Fig. 5 below), and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion (left 32 in Fig. 1; location depicted in annotated Fig. 5 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the crest portion, because as evidenced by Zhu, the configuration amounts to the use of a known structural arrangement in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the first non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area of modified Davidson at the crest portion based on the teaching of Zhu. It is further noted that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
As evidenced by the teaching of Zhu, modifying the structure of Davidson such that the first non-power generation area is located at the trough portion; and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion, amounts to forming a known structural configuration in the art. Applicant has not provided evidence showing that modifying Davidson such that the first non-power generation area is located at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion, as taught by Zhu, would produce unexpected results or performance. Absent a showing of criticality of the claimed configuration, the modification of Davidson such that the first non-power generation area is located at the trough portion, and the second non-power generation area is located at the crest portion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed based on the teachings cited.
The claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 |. A. and KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
It is noted that the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections
in the previous office action.
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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights