UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/440,070
`
`02/23/2017
`
`Xinbing Liu
`
`MATB-443US
`
`9293
`
`04’28’2020
`
`759°
`””2
`RATNERPRESTIA
`
`2200 Renaissance Blvd
`Suite 350
`
`King of Pmssia, PA 19406
`
`GONZALEZ RAMOS” MAYLA
`
`1721
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/28/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`PCorrespondence @ ratnerprestiacom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/440,070
`
`02/23/2017
`
`Xinbing Liu
`
`MATB-443US
`
`9293
`
`04’28’2020
`
`759°
`””2
`RATNERPRESTIA
`
`2200 Renaissance Blvd
`Suite 350
`
`King of Pmssia, PA 19406
`
`GONZALEZ RAMOS” MAYLA
`
`1721
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/28/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`PCorrespondence @ ratnerprestiacom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`
`
`Commissionerfor Patents
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313—1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Application Number: 15/440,070
`
`Filing Date: 23 Feb 2017
`
`Appellant(s): Liu, Xinbing
`
`Jacques L. Etkowicz
`
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`This is in response to the appeal brief filed appealing from the Office action
`
`mailed on 07/29/2019.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page3
`
`(1) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated 07/29/2019 from
`
`which the appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds of
`
`rejection (if any) listed under the subheading “WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS.” New
`
`grounds of rejection (if any) are provided under the subheading “NEW GROUNDS OF
`
`REJECTION.”
`
`The following ground(s) of rejection are applicable to the appealed claims.
`
`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 maynotbe obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
`invention is not identicallydisclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
`claimed invention and the priorartare such thatthe claimed invention as awhole would have
`been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
`ordinaryskill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentabilityshall notbe
`negated bythe manner inwhich the invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 US. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied 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.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page4
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`Claims 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`US 2007/0070531, Lu in view of US 2010/0206357, Littau.
`
`Regarding claim 1
`
`Lu teaches a photovoltaic array (panel concentrator module system 100
`
`comprising concentrator assemblies 150, each having a PV chip having solar cells
`
`mounted on a base plate) [Figs. 1a-1b, 2a—2b, 4a-4b, paragraphs 0016, 0024-0026 and
`
`0031] comprising:
`
`a two-dimensional array of photovoltaic cells having a plurality of rows (PV cells
`
`are attached in recess 51 of each concentrator assembly 150 which are arranged in a
`
`plurality of rows) [Figs. 1a-1b, 2a—2b, 4a-4b, paragraphs 0016, 0024-0026 and 0031],
`
`each row of photovoltaic cells having a pivot axis parallel to the row (each row of
`
`concentrator assemblies 150 having PV cells 20 pivot in an axes parallel to the row e.g.,
`
`x-axis) [Figs. 1a-1b, 2a—2b, paragraphs 0016 and 0025],
`
`each cell having a lens (optics 10 comprising a lens) [paragraphs 0026 and 0031]
`
`having a front surface configured to concentrate light normal to the front surface onto
`
`the photovoltaic element [paragraphs 0026 and 0028]; and
`
`a tilt actuator (motor), coupled to each of the rows of photovoltaic elements to
`
`pivot the rows of photovoltaic elements about their pivot axes [paragraphs 0025 and
`
`0027]
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page5
`
`Lu does not teach a rotational actuator, coupled to the array of photovoltaic cells
`
`configured to rotate the array of photovoltaic cells about an axis perpendicular to a
`
`plane defined by the array of photovoltaic elements.
`
`Littau teaches mounting a photovoltaic array (one or more solar energy collection
`
`elements e.g., PV cells) on a movable support (turntable) comprising a rotational
`
`actuator (rotational positioning system 130 comprises actuator/motor 135) so that the
`
`photovoltaic device rotates about an axis perpendicular to a plane defined by the array
`
`of photovoltaic elements [Abstract, Figs. 1a-1b and 3, paragraphs 0011-0012 and 0034-
`
`0035]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to providing such
`
`rotational movement in addition to the adjustment of the angular positions, maximizes
`
`the power generation efficiency and further allows tracking to take place for most pitch
`
`angles [paragraphs 0012 and 0042].
`
`Lu and Littau are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic arrays.
`
`It
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art before the effective filing date
`
`of the invention to modify the array of Lu to comprise a rotational actuator (which is
`
`coupled to a turntable) as in Littau in order to provide the rotational movement of the
`
`array (which allows tracking to take place for most pitch angles) in addition to the
`
`adjustment of the angular positions, thereby maximizing the power generation efficiency
`
`and effectively tracking the sun [Littau, paragraphs 0012 and 0042].
`
`Regarding claim 2
`
`All the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, have been set forth
`
`above.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page6
`
`Modified Lu teaches a motor with a helical lead screw (see helical gear 203) as
`
`the tilt actuator for pivoting the rows of photovoltaic elements (x-axis rotation of
`
`concentrator assemblies 150 is accomplished by turning axles 142 from a gear set 203
`
`through a handle 145 and a connecting bar 144) [Fig. 2a and paragraph 0027].
`
`While, Modified Lu teaches a motor as the rotational actuator for rotating the
`
`array of photovoltaic elements [Littau, paragraphs 0011-0012 and 0034-0035], the
`
`embodiment depicting the rotational actuator does not disclose a stepper motor.
`
`However, Lu shows that stepper motors are generally used in the art to perform
`
`rotational adjustments in photovoltaic concentrator arrays [paragraphs 0025 and 0040].
`
`Further actuators include hydraulic or pneumatic systems and robotic adjustors.
`
`Therefore, because Lu teaches choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable types of actuators, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious
`
`to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143].
`
`Since Lu teaches that a stepper leads to the anticipated success of performing perform
`
`rotational adjustments said type of actuating device is not of innovation but of ordinary
`
`skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
`
`Regarding claim 4
`
`Modified Lu teaches the photovoltaic array as set forth above, further comprising:
`
`a fixed axis bar (140) connected to of each of the rows by a first pin (186) [Lu, Figs. 1a-
`
`1b and paragraph 0025]; and a pivot driver bar (axle 42) connected to each of the rows
`
`by a second pin (171) [Lu, Figs. 1a-1b and paragraph 0025], wherein the tilt actuator
`
`(motor) pivots the rows by moving the pivot driver bar relative to the fixed axis bar [Lu,
`
`Figs. 1a-1b, paragraphs 0025, 0027].
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page7
`
`Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2007/0070531, Lu in view of US 2010/0206357, Littau as applied to claims 1-2 and
`
`4 above, and further in view of US 2014/0373903, Hashimoto et al.
`
`All the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, have been set forth
`
`above.
`
`Lu modified by Littau does not teach flexible wiring electrically connecting the
`
`photovoltaic cells to each other.
`
`Hashimoto teaches electrically connecting a plurality of photovoltaic cells using
`
`flexible wiring members which are known to effectively connect photovoltaic cells to
`
`each other and, due to their flexible nature, stress is even less likely to be applied
`
`between wiring member and each photovoltaic cell, thereby producing a photovoltaic
`
`device with improved endurance [paragraphs 0003, 0020 and 0025].
`
`Modified Lu and Hashimoto are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic
`
`arrays.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the invention to modify the photovoltaic cells of modified Lu to be
`
`connected to each other using flexible wiring because such achieves an effective
`
`electrical connection between cells and, due to their flexible nature, stress is even less
`
`likely to be applied between wiring member and each photovoltaic cell, thereby
`
`producing a photovoltaic device with improved endurance [Hashimoto, paragraphs
`
`0003, 0020 and 0025].
`
`Claims 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2007/0070531, Lu in view of US 2010/0206357, Littau as applied to claims 1-2 and
`
`4 above, and further in view of US 20110067688, Reif et al.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page8
`
`All the limitations of claim 1, from which claims 5 and 6 depend, have been set
`
`forth above.
`
`Regarding claim 5
`
`Modified Lu teaches a controller for controlling the rotational actuator and the tilt
`
`actuator to track sunlight based on time of day values and date of year values provided
`
`by a clock circuit [Lu, paragraphs 0016 and 0033-0034; Littau, paragraphs 0035].
`
`Lu modified by Littau does not an open loop controller for controlling the
`
`rotational actuator and the tilt actuator to track sunlight based on time of day values and
`
`date of year values provided by a clock circuit.
`
`Reif teaches atracking system including an open loop controller for controlling
`
`the rotational actuator and the tilt actuator to track sunlight based on time of day values
`
`and date of year values provided by a clock circuit (an open-loop controller with an
`
`internal clock and a set of pre-calculated motor parameters effects the repositioning of
`
`one or more elements of the solar concentrator system based upon system settings
`
`such as, for example, geographical location of the solar concentrator system the
`
`positioning adjustments may vary) [paragraph 0156].
`
`Modified Lu and Reif are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic tracking
`
`arrays.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the invention to modify the controller of modified Lu with an open loop
`
`controller as in Reif because such can effectively issue control signals that adjust the
`
`position the photovoltaic elements [Reif, paragraphs 0155-0156].
`
`Regarding claim 6
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page9
`
`Modified Lu teaches a controller for controlling the rotational actuator and the tilt
`
`actuator to track sunlight based on time of day values and date of year values provided
`
`by a clock circuit [Lu, paragraphs 0016 and 0033-0034; Littau, paragraphs 0035].
`
`Lu modified by Littau does not teach a closed loop controller for controlling the
`
`rotational actuator and the tilt actuator to track sunlight based on time of day values and
`
`date of year values provided by a clock circuit, and based on a signal output by the
`
`array.
`
`Reif teaches atracking system including an closed loop controller for controlling
`
`the rotational actuator and the tilt actuator to track sunlight based on time of day values
`
`and date of year values provided by a clock circuit (a closed-loop control system relying
`
`on both pre-derived calculated i.e., comprising a clock circuit, as well as external
`
`monitoring devices such as sensors which detect conditions affecting the system, effect
`
`the repositioning of the one of more elements) [paragraphs 0155, 0157 and 0160].
`
`Modified Lu and Reif are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic tracking
`
`arrays.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the invention to modify the controller of modified Lu with a closed loop
`
`controller as in Reif because such can effectively issue control signals that adjust the
`
`position the photovoltaic elements [Reif, paragraphs 0155, 0157 and 0160].
`
`Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
`
`2007/0070531, Lu in view of US 2010/0206357, Littau as applied to claims 1-2 and
`
`4 above, and further in view of US 2011/0030672, Olsson and US 9,291,696, Adest
`
`et al.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page10
`
`All the limitations of claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, have been set forth
`
`above.
`
`Modified Lu teaches a controller for controlling the rotational actuator and the tilt
`
`actuator to track sunlight based on time of day values and date of year values provided
`
`by a clock circuit [Lu, paragraphs 0016 and 0033-0034; Littau, paragraphs 0035].
`
`Modified Ly does not teach a capacitor.
`
`Olsson teaches that batteries or capacitors can be used to store the energy from
`
`the photovoltaic cells to provide power to operate both motorized rotation axes
`
`[paragraph 0055].
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
`
`filing date of the invention to modify the photovoltaic array of modified Lu to comprise a
`
`capacitor in order to store energy generated from the PV cells which then can be used
`
`to provide power to operate the motorized rotations [Olsson, paragraph 0055].
`
`Lu modified by Littau does not teach the controller being a partially analog
`
`controller for controlling the rotational actuator and tilt actuator to track sunlight based
`
`on an analog comparison between a present signal output by the array and a previous
`
`signal output by the array stored in a capacitor.
`
`Adest teaches controlling the position of a photovoltaic array using an analog
`
`controller, a digital controller of a combination thereof [Col. 3, lines 62-64 and Col. 4,
`
`lines 57-67 to Col. 5, lines 1-13].
`
`Therefore, because Adest teaches choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable types controllers for controlling actuators that are adapted to adjust the
`
`position of photovoltaic arrays, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page11
`
`to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143].
`
`Since Adest teaches that a combination of analog and digital circuitry leads to the
`
`anticipated success, said type of controller is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense [see MPEP 2143].
`
`(2) Response to Argument
`
`Appellant begins traversal of the rejection of claims 1-7 on page 3 of the Appeal
`
`Brief (herein after referred to as “ Brief’) filed 01/10/2020.
`
`A. REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 4 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 OVER LU (US
`
`2007/0070531) IN VIEW OF LITTAU (US 2010/0206357).
`
`Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have lacked any
`
`reason to add a rotational actuator to the concentrator system of Lu.
`
`Appellant argues that Lu teaches that rotation on two orthogonal axes is all that
`
`is necessary to track the motion of the sun. (See Lu at H 25.)
`
`Appellant further argues that adding a rotational actuator to Lu, as proposed by
`
`the Examiner, would provide no additional capability or advantage, because Lu is
`
`already capable of two-axis rotation.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. While concentrating sunlight by tilting may be
`
`effective, one cannot capture the incident sunlight at all times during the day merely by
`
`tilting. For example, known shadowing losses, for example by clouds blocking the
`
`sunlight or sun’s movement throughout the year, may be mitigated by incorporating
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page12
`
`additional movements/tracking other than tilting. A rotating tracking mechanism, which
`
`rotates around vertical rotational axis 2, allows tracking to take place for most pitch
`
`angles (Littau, paragraph 0042). Such would therefore allow for a higher degree of
`
`accuracy because by rotating around the z axis, the turntable continues to bring each
`
`cell of the array into a position that receives sunlight at all times during the day. The
`
`rotational movement in combination the adjustment of the tilt angle to account for the
`
`suns changing elevation angle, maximizes the power generation efficiency and
`
`effectively tracking the sun (see Littau, paragraphs 0012 and 0042). One of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have found obvious to providing such rotational movement in
`
`addition to the adjustment of the angular positions, maximizes the power generation
`
`efficiency and further allows tracking to take place for most pitch angles (Littau,
`
`paragraphs 0012 and 0042). Further, due to the short distance of the device from the
`
`roof, wind loads on the solar collector are not increased (Littau, paragraph 0042].
`
`Appellant argues that the concentrator system of Lu is already capable of
`
`"effectively tracking the sun" "for most pitch angles. " As explained in Lu,
`
`'[Flotation on
`
`the two orthogonal axes allow each assembly to track the diurnal motion of the sun in
`
`the east-west direction, as well as the shift in solar elevation in the north-
`
`south direction. " (See Lu at H 25.)
`
`Appellant argues that since Lu is already capable of tracking the motion of the
`
`sun without modification, including shifts in solar elevation in the north-south direction
`
`(i. e., at different pitch angles), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no need to
`
`add an additional rotational element to the system of Lu.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15l440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page13
`
`Appellant further argues that such a modification would not "maximize the power
`
`generation efficiency" of the system of Lu, as argued by the Examiner;
`
`it would decrease the efficiency of the system by adding a redundant and
`
`unnecessary rotational system.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. The concentrator assemblies of Lu “rotate” i.e.,
`
`tilt/pivot, about the x- and y- directions (paragraph 0025 of Lu). The rotational element
`
`of Littau rotates in the z-axis (see paragraph 0042 of Littau). As set forth above, while
`
`concentrating sunlight by tilting may be effective, one cannot capture the incident
`
`sunlight at all times during the day merely by tilting. Known shadowing losses, for
`
`example by clouds blocking the sunlight or sun’s movement throughout the year, may
`
`be mitigated by incorporating additional movements/tracking other than tilting. A
`
`rotating tracking mechanism, which rotates around vertical rotational axis 2, allows
`
`tracking to take place for most pitch angles (see Littau, Abstract and paragraph 0042).
`
`Such would therefore allow for a higher degree of accuracy because by rotating around
`
`the z axis, the turntable continues to bring each cell of the array into a position that
`
`receives sunlight at all times during the day. The rotational movement in combination
`
`the adjustment of the tilt angle to account for the suns changing elevation angle,
`
`maximizes the power generation efficiency and effectively tracking the sun (see Littau,
`
`paragraphs 0012 and 0042). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found
`
`obvious to providing such rotational movement in addition to the adjustment of the
`
`angular positions, maximizes the power generation efficiency and further allows tracking
`
`to take place for most pitch angles (see Littau, paragraphs 0012 and 0042).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15l440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page14
`
`Appellant argues that the alleged rotational actuator taught in Littau is a large
`
`tracking structure on which an entire photovoltaic array is mounted, supported, and
`
`rotated.
`
`Appellant argues that Lu specifically teaches away from the use of a single "large
`
`tracking structure" for rotating photovoltaic arrays due to "the bulky construction and
`
`complexity in maintenance. " (See Lu at H 3.)
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. Littau recognizes the difficulties associated
`
`when integrating bulky/heavy concentrator assemblies. Littau further recognizes that
`
`concentrating-type solar devices are rarely used on commercial and residential rooftop
`
`settings because of their substantial weight and wind loading structures (rooftop of most
`
`houses and buildings would require substantial retrofitting to support their substantial
`
`weight and wind loading structures) [Littau, paragraph 0008].
`
`Littau provides a suitable solution for minimizing the size and weight of
`
`supporting structures of concentrator assemblies for use in commercial and rooftop
`
`settings (see Littau, paragraphs 0003, 0008 and 0012). The supporting structure of
`
`Littau comprising a rotating platform which rotates the assembly about an axis 2- which
`
`positions the assembly in a position that minimizes the engineering demands on the
`
`strength of the support structure and the amount of power required to operate the
`
`tracking system, avoiding the problems associated with adapting commercial trough
`
`reflector devices, and providing an economically viable solar-electricity generation
`
`device that facilitates residential rooftop and other implementation (see Littau
`
`paragraphs 0012 and 0042).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page15
`
`Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious that a rotational
`
`device in combination with the adjustment of the tilt angle to account for the suns
`
`changing elevation angle provides a range of movement which allows a greater
`
`coverage of the sunlight. Such would therefore allow for a higher degree of accuracy
`
`because by rotating around the z axis, the turntable continues to bring each cell of the
`
`array into a position that receives sunlight at all times during the day. Therefore, one of
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have found obvious to providing such rotational movement
`
`in addition to the adjustment of the angular positions, maximizes the power generation
`
`efficiency and further allows tracking to take place for most pitch angles (see Littau,
`
`paragraphs 0012 and 0042).
`
`Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have replaced
`
`one of the rotational components of Lu with a rotating support structure as disclosed by
`
`Littau.
`
`Appellant further argues that such a modification would impermissibly change the
`
`prinCIple of operation of Lu, by replacing the individual pivot mechanisms of Lu with a
`
`large array-based rotational system.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. “The test for obviousness is not whether the
`
`features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
`
`primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
`
`references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642
`
`F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page16
`
`The rejection does not set forth substituting/replacing the rotational/pivoting
`
`mechanisms in Lu for the rotational system in Littau. Rather, the rejection sets forth
`
`positioning the system of Lu on a rotating platform which is in turn coupled to a
`
`rotational actuator which allows tracking to take place for most pitch angles) in order to
`
`provide the rotational movement of the array (in addition to the adjustment of the
`
`angular positions, thereby maximizing the power generation efficiency and effectively
`
`tracking the sun (Littau, paragraphs 0012 and 0042). The “rotating” movement in Lu is
`
`merely tilting about Lu specifically the x- and y- directions (paragraph 0025 of Lu).
`
`Littau shows rotation about a z-axis (Littau, Figs. 3 and 4a-4c, Abstract, paragraphs
`
`0042 and 0044). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious that a
`
`rotational device/movement in combination with the adjustment of the tilt angle to
`
`account for the suns changing elevation angle provides a range of movement which
`
`allows a greater coverage of the sunlight. Such would therefore allow for a higher
`
`degree of accuracy because by rotating around the z axis, the turntable continues to
`
`bring each cell of the array into a position that receives sunlight at all times during the
`
`day. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to providing
`
`such rotational movement in addition to the adjustment of the angular positions,
`
`maximizes the power generation efficiency and further allows tracking to take place for
`
`most pitch angles (see Littau, paragraphs 0012 and 0042).
`
`Appellant argues that Lu specifically teaches away from the use of a single "large
`
`tracking structure" for rotating arrays of concentrator assemblies.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15l440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page17
`
`Appellant argues that, according to Lu,
`
`'[bjecause of the bulky construction and
`
`complexity in maintenance, [such large tracking structures] are long believed to be unfit
`
`and unsightly for commercial or residential applications. " {ld.)
`
`Appellant further argues that Lu proposes to resolve the problems in the prior
`
`art by developing "a low profile flat panel that is mounted on rooftops or simple
`
`support structures, has a tracking system hidden from view and isolated from wind,
`
`sand and moisture.... " (See Lu a H 4.)
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Littau recognizes the
`
`difficulties associated when integrating bulky/heavy concentrator assemblies. Littau
`
`further recognizes that concentrating-type solar devices are rarely used on commercial
`
`and residential rooftop settings because of their substantial weight and wind loading
`
`structures (rooftop of most houses and buildings would require substantial retrofitting to
`
`support their substantial weight and wind loading structures) [Littau, paragraph 0008].
`
`Littau provides a suitable solution for minimizing the size and weight of
`
`supporting structures of concentrator assemblies thereby allowing them to be used in
`
`commercial and rooftop settings without increasing the engineering demands on the
`
`strength of the support structure and the amount of power required to operate the
`
`tracking system, thereby avoiding the problems associated with adapting commercial
`
`trough reflector devices, and providing an economically viable solar-electricity
`
`generation device that facilitates residential rooftop and other implementation (see
`
`Littau paragraphs 0012 and 0042).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`Page18
`
`B. REJECTION OF CLAIM 3 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 OVER LU AND LITTAU, AND
`
`FURTHER IN VIEW OF HASHIMOTO (US 2014/0373903).
`
`Claim 3 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 1 for the reasons as set
`
`forth above.
`
`C. REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5 AND 6 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 OVER LU AND
`
`LITTAU, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REIF (US 2011/0067688).
`
`Claims 5 and 6 are rejected based on its dependency on claim 1 for the reasons
`
`as set forth above.
`
`D. REJECTION OF CLAIM 7 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 OVER LU AND LITTAU, AND
`
`FURTHER IN VIEW OF OLSSON (US 2011/0030672) AND ADEST (US 9,291,696).
`
`Claim 7 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 1 for the reasons as set
`
`forth above.
`
`For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`Conferees:
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number:15/440,070
`Art Unit:1721
`
`/ALLISON BOURKE/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`/Jennifer McNeiI/
`
`Primary Examiner, TC 1700
`
`Page19
`
`Requirement to pay appeal forwarding fee.
`
`In order to avoid dismissal of the instant
`
`appeal in any application or ex parte reexamination proceeding, 37 CFR 41.45 requires
`payment of an appeal forwarding fee within the time permitted by 37 CFR 41 .45(a),
`unless appellant had timely paid the fee for filing a brief required by 37 CFR 41 .20(b) in
`effect on March 18, 2013.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
