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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claims 9-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/17/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1, claims 1-8, 22-33 in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22, the limitations of “a rotational axis” and “an axis” are unclear if they are the same or different than “a rotational axis” and “an axis” in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, and 22-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Chaimovski (US Pub No. 2013/0240015)
Regarding Claim 1, Chaimovski et al. teaches an apparatus [300, Fig. 3A, 0032-0033], comprising: a first set of solar panels; a second set of solar panels; and
an interface that rotatably couples the first set of solar panels to the second set of solar
panels such that an edge is defined between a side of the first set of solar panels and a side of
the second set of solar panels, and an angular position of the first set of solar panels relative
to the second set of solar panels is adjustable, the interface including a first hinge at a first
endpoint portion of the edge and a second hinge at a second endpoint portion of the edge that is
opposite the first endpoint portion of the edge [see annotated figure below],
The rectangle with sharp edges is the first set of solar panels [320, Fig. 3A, 0032], the rectangle with curved corners are the second set of solar panels [320, Fig. 3A, 0032], the solid arrow is the area of the interface, the circles show the first and second hinges [330, Fig. 3A, 0032]. The edge is the area between the first and second set of solar panels.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: rect][AltContent: roundedrect]
PNG
media_image1.png
395
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The solid rectangles with the curved corners below shows the frame.
[AltContent: roundedrect]
PNG
media_image1.png
395
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first set of solar panels, the second set of solar panels, and the interface defining a
solar module configured to be disposed on an uneven surface [Fig. 3A-3B, 0032-0024] by virtue of at least one of:
(i) the solar module not including a coupler at a midpoint portion of the
edge such that the side of the first set of solar panels is movable relative to the side of the
second set of solar panels such that the side of the first set of solar panels is not
everywhere parallel with the side of the second set of solar panels [there is no coupler in figure 3A, and there are portions of the second set of solar panels that are not parallel with portions of the first set of solar panels, meeting the limitations of the claim]
(iii) a deformation in at least one of a frame of the first set of solar panels or a
frame of the second set of solar panels [the hinges move the frame of the first set solar panel, the movement provides deformation of the frame, meeting the limitations of the claim].
Regarding Claim 2, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches wherein the solar module is configured to be disposed on the uneven surface by virtue of the deformation in the at least one of the frame of the first set of solar panels or the frame of the second set of solar panels, the deformation including at least one of a bending of the at least one of the frame of the first set of solar panels or the frame of the second set of solar panels [Fig. 3A, 0032-0033].
Regarding Claim 4, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches further comprising a set of electronics mechanically and electrically coupled to at least one of the first set of solar panels or the second set of solar panels, the apparatus being configurable between an open position and a closed position, the electronics being positioned between the first set of solar panels and the second set of solar panels when the apparatus is in the closed position [Fig. 3A-3B, 0032-0034, Fig. 9, 0038-0039].
Regarding Claim 22, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches wherein the solar module is configured to be disposed on the uneven surface by virtue of the second set of solar panels further being rotatable, independently of the first set of solar panels, about a rotational axis different from an axis defined by the edge, the apparatus further including a support configured to support the second set of solar panels above the uneven surface at an adjustable height, such that a height of the support is adjustable to accommodate a slope of the uneven surface [Fig. 3A-3B, 0032-0034].
Regarding Claim 23, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches wherein the apparatus is configurable between an open- book configuration in which the first set of solar panels and the second set of solar panels form a nonzero angle therebetween, and a closed-book configuration in which a substantially zero angle is formed between the first set of solar panels and the second set of solar panels, without disassembling the apparatus [Fig. 3A-3B, 0032-0034].
Regarding Claim 24, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches wherein the apparatus does not include a flexible connector, does not include a spring, and is freely rotatable between a closed-book configuration and an open-book configuration without the interface becoming substantially tensioned [Fig. 3A-3B, 0032-0034].
Regarding Claim 25, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches wherein an inactive surface of the first set of solar panels faces an inactive surface of the second set of solar panels when the apparatus is in a closed-book configuration, such that an active surface of the first set of solar panels and an active surface of the second set of solar panels are positioned on an exterior of the apparatus [Fig. 3A-3B, 0032-0034].
Regarding Claim 26, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches wherein an active surface of the first set of solar panels faces an active surface of the second set of solar panels when the apparatus is in a closed-book configuration [Fig. 3A-3B, 0032-0034].
Regarding Claim 27, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches further comprising an elastic member [310-2, Fig. 3A, 0032-0033] configured to be disposed between the active surface of the first set of solar panels and the active surface of the second set of solar panels when the apparatus is in the closed-book configuration [Fig. 3A-3B, 0032-0034].
Regarding Claim 28, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches wherein the interface further includes at least one of a chain link, a wire link, or an articulating connector [Fig. 3A-3B, 0032-0034, see rejection of claim 1, the plurality of hinges act as an articulating connector].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 29, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimovski (US Pub No. 2013/0240015)
Regarding Claim 29, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. teaches wherein the first endpoint portion of the edge includes one hinge and the second endpoint portion of the edge includes one hinge [Fig. 3A, 0032-003].
Chainmovski et al. is silent on more than one hinge.
Since Chaimovski et al. teaches the use of a hinge on a first and second endpoint, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify each hinge to a plurality of hinges as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design as the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 31, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. is silent on wherein each of the first hinge and the second hinge is removable from the apparatus after installation of the apparatus on the uneven surface, and removal of the first hinge and the second hinge permits the first set of solar panels to twist relative to the second set of solar panels.
Since Chaimovski et al. teaches the use of a hinges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to make the hinges removable as it is merely the selection of conventional engineering design as the making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 32, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. is silent on wherein the frame of the first set of solar panels has a depth relative to an inactive surface of the first set of solar panels and defines a recess of the first set of solar panels, and the frame of the second set of solar panels has a depth relative to an inactive surface of the second set of solar panels and defines a recess of the second set of solar panels.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the apparatus, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the apparatus are changed, the precise parameters of the apparatus would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the frame of the first set of solar panels has a depth relative to an inactive surface of the first set of solar panels and defines a recess of the first set of solar panels, and the frame of the second set of solar panels has a depth relative to an inactive surface of the second set of solar panels and defines a recess of the second set of solar panels. ” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, parameters of the apparatus to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding Claim 33, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. is silent on wherein when the apparatus is in a closed-book configuration, a spacing of between about 50 mm and about 70 mm is defined between a surface of the first set of solar panels and a surface of the second set of solar panels.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the apparatus, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the apparatus are changed, the precise parameters of the apparatus would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein when the apparatus is in a closed-book configuration, a spacing of between about 50 mm and about 70 mm is defined between a surface of the first set of solar panels and a surface of the second set of solar panels.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, parameters of the apparatus to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimovski (US Pub No. 2013/0240015) in view of Curran (US Pub No. 2012/0313569)
Regarding Claim 3, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. is silent on further comprising at least one of a microinverter or
a power optimizer mechanically and electrically coupled to at least one of the first set of solar
panels or the second set of solar panels.
Curran et al. teaches the use of a microinverter for a folding solar panel system [0048].
Since Chaimovski et al. teaches the use of solar panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the microinverter of Curran et al. to the system of Chaimovski et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimovski (US Pub No. 2013/0240015) in view of Jellema (EP3709507)
Regarding Claim 5, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. is silent on further comprising:
a substantially rigid connector having a first end portion and a second end portion, the
first end portion being mechanically coupled to the frame of the first set of solar panels and the
second end portion being mechanically coupled to the frame of the second set of solar panels, the
substantially rigid connector configured to limit the angular position of the first set of solar
panels relative to the second set of solar panels to a predefined value.
Jellema et al. teaches a rigid connector [22, Fig. 1A, 0050] for a first and second set of solar panels [Fig. 1A, 0050] used to function as a limiting element which limits angle α to a determined, maximum obtuse angle [0050].
Since Chaimovski et al. teaches the use of folding solar panels similar to that of Symem et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to add the rigid connector of Jellema et al. to the solar panels of Chaimovski et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 6, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. is silent on further comprising at least one of:
a hinged connector having a first end portion and a second end portion, the first end
portion being mechanically coupled to the frame of the first set of solar panels and the second
end being mechanically coupled to the frame of the second set of solar panels,
at least one rod configured to mechanically couple, via a clip mechanism, to each of the
frame of the first set of solar panels and the frame of the second set of solar panels, or
at least one hook configured to mechanically couple the frame of the first set of solar
panels to the frame of the second set of solar panels.
Jellema et al. teaches a hinged connector [22, Fig. 1A, 0050] for a first and second set of solar panels [Fig. 1A, 0050] used to function as a limiting element which limits angle α to a determined, maximum obtuse angle [0050].
Since Chaimovski et al. teaches the use of folding solar panels similar to that of Symem et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to add the hinged connector of Jellema et al. to the solar panels of Chaimovski et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 7, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. is silent on further comprising: a support configured (1) to be disposed between (i) each of the first set of solar panels and the second set of solar panels, and (ii) the uneven surface, and (2) to at least partially conform to the uneven surface.
Jellema et al. teaches a support [22, Fig. 1A, 0050] for a first and second set of solar panels [Fig. 1A, 0050] used to function as a limiting element which limits angle α to a determined, maximum obtuse angle [0050].
Since Chaimovski et al. teaches the use of folding solar panels similar to that of Symem et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to add the support of Jellema et al. to the solar panels of Chaimovski et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimovski (US Pub No. 2013/0240015) in view of Oakley (US Pub NO. 2021/0058027)
Regarding Claim 8, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. is silent on wherein each solar panel from the first set of solar panels is electrically coupled to remaining solar panels from the first set of solar panels, each solar panel from the second set of solar panels is electrically coupled to remaining solar panels from the second set of solar panels, and the first set of solar panels is not electrically coupled to the second set of solar panels.
Oakley et al. teaches pv cells of solar panels which may be interconnected by various methods in series or parallel to meet voltage and/or current requirements [0024].
Since Chaimovski et al. teaches the use of solar cells in a plurality of solar panels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the solar panels of Chaimovski et al. to meet specific voltage and/or current requirements as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one or ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaimovski (US Pub No. 2013/0240015) in view of Dempsey (US Pub No. 2026/0254401)
Regarding Claim 30, Chaimovski et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chaimovski et al. is silent on wherein at least one of the first hinge or the second hinge includes a pin disposed within a knuckle, the pin having a width that is less than a width of an interior of the knuckle such that the at least one of the first hinge or the second hinge permits the first set of solar panels to twist relative to the second set of solar panels.
Dempsey et al. teaches a hinge with a hinge knuckle and a pin [0061].
Since Chaimovski et al. teaches the use of hinges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the hinges of Chiamovski et al. with the hinge design of Dempsey et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights