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 .
Specification
It is noted that the amendment filed 01/02/2025 to paragraph [0061] of the as-filed specification has not been entered because the amendment presents new matter not described in the as-filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the as-filed specification does not describe said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum and emit light in at least a portion of the infrared region of the spectrum with a maximum intensity between 750 nm to 1000 nm.
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, 6-7, 10, 12-20, 24-25, 33, 38, 40, and 45-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimov et al. (WO 2016/060643 A1 - see equivalent US 2017/0218264) in view of Li et al. (“Large Stokes Shift and High Efficiency Luminescent Solar Concentrator Incorporated with CuInS2/ZnS Quantum Dots”) and further in view of Lunt et al. (US 2014/0130864), as evidenced by Yang et al. ("Analysis and Calculation of Melting Performance for Low-Iron Glass").
Regarding claim 1, Klimov discloses a window (abstract L18) comprising: a frame ([0110] L5); first and second opposing sheets of glass which are disposed in said frame ([0085] L8-9, [0115] L2-3); a waveguide containing said first and second sheets of glass and a luminescent layer which is disposed between, and in direct contact with, a major surface of each of said first and second sheets of glass ([0067] L17-18; [0085], [0107], [0110], [0114], [0115]); a photovoltaic cell disposed in said frame ([0110] L3-5) and in optical communication with said waveguide ([0107]); wherein said luminescent layer includes a solid polymeric medium ([0085]) containing a plurality of fluorophores ([0088]), wherein said fluorophores are nanoscale particles ([0075]), and wherein said nanoscale particles are quantum dots ([0074] L3) having at least one dimension less than about 50 nanometers ([0080]), wherein said medium has an index of refraction that is within 30% of the index of refraction of said first and second sheets of glass ([0146] L8-9; refractive index of PMMA is 1.49); wherein said waveguide is at least partially transparent to light in the visible region of the spectrum ([0110] L1-3); and wherein said waveguide transmits a portion of the light emitted by the fluorophores to said photovoltaic cell ([0107]).
While Klimov does disclose the nanocrystal of the substantially transparent composition embodiments disclosed herein can comprise any suitable nanocrystal, and lists exemplary embodiments ([0009] L1-3); Klimov does not explicitly disclose said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum and emit light in at least a portion of the infrared region of the spectrum.
Li discloses the use of CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots in a luminescent concentrator (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the luminescent concentrator of Klimov with CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots, as disclosed by Li, because as taught by Li, the CuInS2/ZnS QDs-LSC provides a promising way for high efficiency, nonhazardous and low cost solar energy (abstract).
Modified Klimov does not explicitly disclose the first and second sheets of glass contain less than 0.01% iron.
Lunt discloses a luminescent concentrator and further discloses wherein said first and second sheets of glass contain low iron glass ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use low iron glass, as disclosed by Lunt, for the first and second sheets of glass of modified Klimov, because as evidenced by Lunt, the use of low iron glass in a luminescent concentrator amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using low iron glass in modified Klimov based on the teaching of Lunt.
As evidenced by Yang, the Fe2O3 content in low iron glass is about 0.01% (abstract). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum and emit light in at least a portion of the infrared or visible regions of the spectrum”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 3, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation "wherein said luminescent layer absorbs at least 1%, at least 5%, at least 10%, at least 20%, at least 50%, or at least 70% of incident visible light", when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Klimov further discloses said medium is polymethyl methacrylate (Klimov - [0087]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Klimov further discloses said medium contacts said first and second sheets of glass across first and second non-reflective interfaces (Klimov - [0085]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
The limitation “wherein said medium was cured in between said sheets of glass” is directed to the manner in which the device is made and it is noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Regarding claim 12, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation "said plurality of fluorophores has a quantum yield of at least 20%, at least 40%, at least 60%, at least 80%, at least 90%, or near 100%", when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 13, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation "wherein said plurality of fluorophores has an emission peak between 400 nm and 1300 nm", when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 14, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Klimov does not explicitly disclose wherein said plurality of fluorophores have a self-absorption of less than 50% of their photoluminescence across the integrated spectrum over distances of at least 1 mm, at least 1 cm, at least 1 m, or at least 10 m, however, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Klimov does not explicitly disclose wherein said plurality of fluorophores have a Stokes shift of greater than 50 meV, greater than 100 meV, greater than 200 meV, or greater than 300 meV, however, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 16, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
The limitation “wherein said medium was made by an extrusion process” is directed to the manner in which the device was made and it is noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Regarding claim 17, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Klimov further discloses said first and second sheets of glass are curved (Klimov - [0110] L5-6).
Regarding claim 18, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Klimov further discloses said plurality of fluorophores have a photoluminescence (Klimov - [0142]), and further comprising at least one coating one at least one of said sheets of glass that selectively reflects said photoluminescence (Klimov - [0108]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Klimov does not explicitly disclose at least one coating on at least one of said sheets of glass that reduces the reflection of sunlight.
Lunt discloses a luminescent concentrator and further discloses at least one coating on at least one of said sheets of glass that reduces the reflection of sunlight ([0022], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an anti-reflective coating, as disclosed by Lunt, on one of the glass sheets of modified Klimov, in order to maximize the amount of sunlight transmitted.
Regarding claim 20, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Klimov does not explicitly disclose at least one low-emissivity coating on at least one of said sheets of glass.
Lunt discloses a luminescent concentrator and further discloses at least one low-emissivity coating on at least one of said sheets of glass ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a low-emissivity coating, as disclosed by Lunt, on at least one of the sheets of glass of modified Klimov, because as evidenced by Lunt, the use of a low-emissivity coating on a glass substrate of a luminescent concentrator amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a low-emissivity coating on the glass substrate(s) of modified Klimov based on the teaching of Lunt.
Regarding claim 24, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Klimov further discloses a vehicle comprising the window (Klimov - [0110]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Klimov further discloses a building structure comprising the window (Klimov - [0110]).
Regarding claim 33, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Klimov further discloses said quantum dots have a core-shell structure, and wherein said core includes CuInS2 (Li – abstract).
Regarding claim 38, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Klimov further discloses said waveguide causes light to propagate therethrough via total internal reflection (Klimov - [0155]).
Regarding claim 40, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation "wherein said plurality of fluorophores has a quantum yield of at least 80%", when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 45, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation "wherein said nanoscale particles exhibit size-dependent electronic and optical properties due to quantum confinement", when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 46, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum and emit light in at least a portion of the infrared region of the spectrum”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 47-50, Klimov discloses a window (abstract L18) comprising: a frame ([0110] L5); first and second opposing sheets of glass which are disposed in said frame ([0085] L8-9, [0115] L2-3); a waveguide containing said first and second sheets of glass and a luminescent layer which is disposed between, and in direct contact with, a major surface of each of said first and second sheets of glass ([0067] L17-18; [0085], [0107], [0110], [0114], [0115]); a photovoltaic cell disposed in said frame ([0110] L3-5) and in optical communication with said waveguide ([0107]); wherein said luminescent layer includes a solid polymeric medium ([0085]) containing a plurality of fluorophores ([0088]), wherein said fluorophores are nanoscale particles ([0075]), and wherein said nanoscale particles are quantum dots ([0074] L3) having at least one dimension less than about 50 nanometers ([0080]), wherein said medium has an index of refraction that is within 30% of the index of refraction of said first and second sheets of glass ([0146] L8-9; refractive index of PMMA is 1.49); wherein said waveguide is at least partially transparent to light in the visible region of the spectrum ([0110] L1-3); and wherein said waveguide transmits a portion of the light emitted by the plurality of fluorophores to said photovoltaic cell ([0107]).
While Klimov does disclose said nanoscale particles are quantum dots ([0074] L3) having at least one dimension less than about 50 nanometers ([0080]), Klimov does not explicitly disclose said nanoscale particles are quantum dots having a core/shell structure, and said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum and emit light in at least a portion of the infrared or visible regions of the spectrum.
Li discloses the use of CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots in a luminescent concentrator (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the luminescent concentrator of Klimov with CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots, as disclosed by Li, because as taught by Li, the CuInS2/ZnS QDs-LSC provides a promising way for high efficiency, nonhazardous and low cost solar energy (abstract).
Modified Klimov does not explicitly disclose the first and second sheets of glass contain less than 0.01% iron.
Lunt discloses a luminescent concentrator and further discloses wherein said first and second sheets of glass contain low iron glass ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use low iron glass, as disclosed by Lunt, for the first and second sheets of glass of modified Klimov, because as evidenced by Lunt, the use of low iron glass in a luminescent concentrator amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using low iron glass in modified Klimov based on the teaching of Lunt.
As evidenced by Yang, the Fe2O3 content in low iron glass is about 0.01% (abstract). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum and emit light in at least a portion of the infrared or visible regions of the spectrum”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 51, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum and emit light in at least a portion of the infrared region of the spectrum with a maximum intensity between 750 nm to 1000 nm,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimov et al. (WO 2016/060643 A1 - see equivalent US 2017/0218264) in view of Li et al. (“Large Stokes Shift and High Efficiency Luminescent Solar Concentrator Incorporated with CuInS2/ZnS Quantum Dots”) further in view of Lunt et al. (US 2014/0130864), as evidenced by Yang et al. ("Analysis and Calculation of Melting Performance for Low-Iron Glass") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Memari et al. (US 2009/0255194).
Regarding claim 21, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Klimov does not explicitly disclose an insulated glass unit comprising the window, and further comprising a third sheet of glass.
Memari discloses an insulated glass unit comprising a window having a first and second sheet of glass, and further comprising a third sheet of glass ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the window of modified Klimov in an insulating glass unit including double or triple pane glass, as disclosed by Memari, because as taught by Memari, and IGU offers an increase in performance over standard glazing because the sealed air space reduced heat gain, heat loss, and sound transmission ([0043]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimov et al. (WO 2016/060643 A1 - see equivalent US 2017/0218264) in view of Li et al. (“Large Stokes Shift and High Efficiency Luminescent Solar Concentrator Incorporated with CuInS2/ZnS Quantum Dots”) further in view of Lunt et al. (US 2014/0130864), as evidenced by Yang et al. ("Analysis and Calculation of Melting Performance for Low-Iron Glass") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayer et al. (US 2012/0222723).
Regarding claim 37, modified Klimov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Klimov does disclose methacrylate polymers (Klimov- [0086], [0087]), modified Klimov does not explicitly disclose said medium comprises ethylene-vinyl acetate.
Mayer discloses a luminescent concentrator and further discloses the medium is ethylene vinyl acetate or methacrylate polymers ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the polymer matrix of modified Klimov with ethylene vinyl acetate as disclosed by Mayer, because as evidenced by Mayer the use of ethylene-vinyl acetate or methacrylate polymers for a solid medium in a luminescent concentrator amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using ethylene vinyl acetate for the polymer matrix of modified Klimov, based on the teaching of Mayer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, with regard to claim 51, Applicant argues that the disclosure reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. In response to Applicant’s argument (presented on page 9 of the Remarks), Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0014], [0045] and [0062] do not describe, or reasonably convey to those skilled in the art, that said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum and emit light in at least a portion of the infrared region of the spectrum with a maximum intensity between 750 nm to 1000 nm. As stated by Applicant on page 9 of the Remarks, Fig. 4 shows a PL peak lying approximately between 900 nm and 950 nm.
This range is not commensurate with the 750 nm to 1000 nm range claimed. Moreover, whether or not the range 900 – 950 nm range lies within the claim 750 nm to 1000 nm range, does not change the fact that a range of 900 – 950 nm is not the broader range of 750 to 1000 nm.
Applicant further argues that the description of Fig. 5 ([0014]) states that the
accessible peak emissions with these materials is 400 nm – 1300 nm. In response to Applicant’s argument, the description of Fig. 5 ([0014]) does not describe “said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum” in conjunction with the description “the accessible peak emissions with these materials is 400 nm – 1300 nm.”
Similarly, the description of paragraphs [0045] and [0062] do not describe “said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum” in conjunction with the description of the emission ranges.
Applicant argues that the as-filed specification expressly discloses fluorophores absorbing in the UV/visible and emitting in the NIR (Fig. 4) and describes tunability over 400-1300 nm. In response to Applicant’s argument, the as-filed specification does not describe tunability over 400-1300 nm in conjunction with said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that claim 1, as amended in Applicant’s previous response, requires the polymer hosts CuInS2/ZnS quantum-dot fluorophores. In response to Applicant’s argument, claim 1 does not require the polymer hosts CuInS2/ZnS quantum-dot fluorophores.
Applicant argues that Klimov describes a single polymer or sol-gel slab (or, at most, a single coated pane) and relies on TIR at a polymer/air boundary. In response to Applicant’s argument, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0085]: “The polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form, such as: a planar substrate or self-standing bulk material; a coating film, such as for a coating on glass or plastic substrates; an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates, typically planar substrates; a fiber, such as an optical fiber made of polymeric materials (plastic optical fiber); or a viscous fluid suitable for making transparent packaging.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Klimov describes a single polymer or sol-gel slab (or, at most, a single coated pane) is not persuasive because Klimov clearly discloses the polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form: such as an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates ([0085]).
Additionally, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0115] and depicts in Fig. 12, composition 730 is formed into a film which at least partially coats one or both of the slabs. Alternatively, composition 730 may be formed into a slab, which is placed between the two substrate slabs 710 and 720, or composition 730 may be a viscous fluid held between the slabs.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the references teach away from the claimed configuration, and that Klimov, Lunt and Li all depend on maintaining an air interface so that light is trapped by TIR; inserting a second glass plane and intentionally index-matching the polymer to both panes would eliminate the very boundary their designs require. In response to Applicant’s argument, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0085]: “The polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form, such as: a planar substrate or self-standing bulk material; a coating film, such as for a coating on glass or plastic substrates; an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates, typically planar substrates; a fiber, such as an optical fiber made of polymeric materials (plastic optical fiber); or a viscous fluid suitable for making transparent packaging.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Klimov teaches away from the claim configuration is not persuasive because Klimov clearly discloses the polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form: such as an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates ([0085]).
Additionally, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0115] and depicts in Fig. 12, composition 730 is formed into a film which at least partially coats one or both of the slabs. Alternatively, composition 730 may be formed into a slab, which is placed between the two substrate slabs 710 and 720, or composition 730 may be a viscous fluid held between the slabs.
Neither Lunt or Li teach away from Klimov’s teachings in paragraphs [0085] and [0115] of an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates.
It is noted that Applicant refers to every reference’s single-slab geometry in page 12 of the Remarks, however, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0085]: “The polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form, such as: a planar substrate or self-standing bulk material; a coating film, such as for a coating on glass or plastic substrates; an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates, typically planar substrates; a fiber, such as an optical fiber made of polymeric materials (plastic optical fiber); or a viscous fluid suitable for making transparent packaging.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Klimov teaches a single-slab geometry is not persuasive because Klimov clearly discloses the polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form: such as an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates ([0085]).
Additionally, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0115] and depicts in Fig. 12, composition 730 is formed into a film which at least partially coats one or both of the slabs. Alternatively, composition 730 may be formed into a slab, which is placed between the two substrate slabs 710 and 720, or composition 730 may be a viscous fluid held between the slabs.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that secondary considerations underscore non-obviousness, and that the unexpected combination of high power density, abrasion resistance and architectural acceptability confirms that the invention was not obvious. In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant has not presented evidence in the form of unexpected results which are achieved with a structure commensurate in scope with the structure recited in the claim(s).
With regard to the combination of features claimed, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With regard to Applicant’s argument directed to the limitation of claim 3 on pages 13 and 14 of the Remarks, claim 3 does not require the implementation of a luminescent interlayer that removes as much as 50% or 70% of the visible spectrum in a window-type concentrator, but instead claim 3 recites “wherein said luminescent layer absorbs at least 1%, at least 5%, at least 10%, at least 20%, at least 50%, or at least 70% of incident visible light.”
Additionally, on page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Applicant’s invention includes the use of large-Stokes-shift, heavy-metal-free CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots (< 50 nm).
In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that claim 3 does not recite CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots) are not recited in claim 3. 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).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues with regard to the rejection of claim 6 (Page 15 of the Remarks) that Klimov’s disclosure is limited to free-standing PMMA slabs or sol-gel coatings, it simply lists broad classes of “poly-acrylate … poly vinyl … epoxy resin … polyurethane … polycellulose … silicone” that could form a generic matrix, but provides no teaching or motivation to laminate those materials between two sheets of glass as an optical waveguide, let alone to employ traditional architectural interlayers such as PVB or TPU for that purpose.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0085]: “The polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form, such as: a planar substrate or self-standing bulk material; a coating film, such as for a coating on glass or plastic substrates; an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates, typically planar substrates; a fiber, such as an optical fiber made of polymeric materials (plastic optical fiber); or a viscous fluid suitable for making transparent packaging.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Klimov’s disclosure is limited to free-standing PMMA slabs or sol-gel coatings is not persuasive. Additionally, as set forth in the office action, Klimov discloses said medium is polymethyl methacrylate ([0087]).
Additionally, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0115] and depicts in Fig. 12, composition 730 is formed into a film which at least partially coats one or both of the slabs. Alternatively, composition 730 may be formed into a slab, which is placed between the two substrate slabs 710 and 720, or composition 730 may be a viscous fluid held between the slabs.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is further noted with regard to Applicant’s assertion of a synergistic trio and secondary considerations, Applicant has not presented evidence in the form of unexpected results which are achieved with a structure commensurate in scope with the structure recited in the claim(s).
Applicant argues with regard to the rejection of claim 7 that Klimov relies on a free-standing polymer or sol-gel slab whose two broad faces are surrounded by air and whose wave-guiding efficiency depends on total internal reflection at that polymer/air boundary.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0085]: “The polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form, such as: a planar substrate or self-standing bulk material; a coating film, such as for a coating on glass or plastic substrates; an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates, typically planar substrates; a fiber, such as an optical fiber made of polymeric materials (plastic optical fiber); or a viscous fluid suitable for making transparent packaging.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Klimov relies on a free-standing polymer or sol-gel slab whose two broad faces are surrounded by air and whose wave-guiding efficiency depends on total internal reflection at that polymer/air boundary is not persuasive.
Additionally, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0115] and depicts in Fig. 12, composition 730 is formed into a film which at least partially coats one or both of the slabs. Alternatively, composition 730 may be formed into a slab, which is placed between the two substrate slabs 710 and 720, or composition 730 may be a viscous fluid held between the slabs.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Each of Applicant’s arguments directed to the rejections of claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 38, 40, 45 and 47-51, respectively, assert that Klimov discloses free-standing or sol-gel slabs and/or a polymer/air interface. In response to Applicant’s argument, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0085]: “The polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form, such as: a planar substrate or self-standing bulk material; a coating film, such as for a coating on glass or plastic substrates; an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates, typically planar substrates; a fiber, such as an optical fiber made of polymeric materials (plastic optical fiber); or a viscous fluid suitable for making transparent packaging.”
Additionally, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0115] and depicts in Fig. 12, composition 730 is formed into a film which at least partially coats one or both of the slabs. Alternatively, composition 730 may be formed into a slab, which is placed between the two substrate slabs 710 and 720, or composition 730 may be a viscous fluid held between the slabs.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Klimov relies on a free-standing polymer or sol-gel slab is not persuasive.
Applicant argues with regard to claim 33 that Li neither discloses the broader CuInSe2 or AgIn analogues nor addresses the laminated safety-glass environment required by claim 1. In response to Applicant’s argument, claim 33 recites “The window of claim 1, wherein said quantum dots have a core-shell structure, and wherein said core includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of CuInS2, CuInSe2, CuInSe2, CuInSexS2-x, AgInS2, AgInSe2, and AgInSe2S2-x, and wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 2,” and requires one material from those recited, therefore, the claim does not require analogues to be addressed. With regard to the argument directed to a laminated safety-glass environment, Li is relied upon to teach said quantum dots have a core-shell structure, and wherein said core includes CuInS2 (abstract), as set forth in the office action. Klimov discloses composition 730 is formed into a film which at least partially coats one or both of the slabs. Alternatively, composition 730 may be formed into a slab, which is placed between the two substrate slabs 710 and 720, or composition 730 may be a viscous fluid held between the slabs (Fig. 12; [0115]).
Additionally, Lunt discloses in paragraph [0068] “Because glass absorption also plays a role, highly transparent low iron glasses such as Saint Gobain Diamont, Planilux and Schott BF33, are preferred.”
Based on these teachings, Applicant’s arguments directed to lamination and low-iron glass are not persuasive because both features are known in the art of luminescent concentrators based on the teachings of Klimov and Lunt.
Applicant argues that the art actually steers the skilled person in an opposite direction from the limitation of claim 46 “The window of claim 1, wherein said plurality of fluorophores absorb light in at least portions of the UV and visible regions of the spectrum and emit light in at least a portion of the infrared region of the spectrum.” Applicant, however, provides no evidence supporting the assertion that the disclosed prior art structure, which contains CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots (Li – abstract), low-iron glass (Lunt – [0068]), and coated slabs of glass (Klimov – [0085], [0115], Fig. 12), would not necessarily have the claimed property due to the similarity between the prior art structure and the structure claimed.
Applicant argues that only Li mentions CuInSe2, and even that single composition is limited to an air-clad slab, not the laminated context of claim 47. In response to Applicant’s argument, the argument is not persuasive because Klimov discloses in paragraph [0085]: “The polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form, such as: a planar substrate or self-standing bulk material; a coating film, such as for a coating on glass or plastic substrates; an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates, typically planar substrates; a fiber, such as an optical fiber made of polymeric materials (plastic optical fiber); or a viscous fluid suitable for making transparent packaging.”
Additionally, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0115] and depicts in Fig. 12, composition 730 is formed into a film which at least partially coats one or both of the slabs. Alternatively, composition 730 may be formed into a slab, which is placed between the two substrate slabs 710 and 720, or composition 730 may be a viscous fluid held between the slabs.
As set forth in the office action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the luminescent concentrator of Klimov with CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots, as disclosed by Li, because as taught by Li, the CuInS2/ZnS QDs-LSC provides a promising way for high efficiency, nonhazardous and low cost solar energy (abstract).
Applicant asserts that Li mentions ZnS alone and in a setting incompatible with the laminated architecture. In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant has presented no evidence to support the assertion and to overcome the established prima facie case of obviousness set forth in the office action: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the luminescent concentrator of Klimov with CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots, as disclosed by Li, because as taught by Li, the CuInS2/ZnS QDs-LSC provides a promising way for high efficiency, nonhazardous and low cost solar energy (abstract).
With regard to claim 50, Applicant argues the prior art necessarily falls short of the requirements of the claim. In response to Applicant’s argument, claim 50 recites “The window of claim 47, wherein said core includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of CuInS2, CuInSe2, CuInSexS2-x, AgInS2, AgInSe2, and AgInSexS2-x, wherein the shell includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of ZnS, ZnSeyS1-y and ZnSe, and wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 2 and 0 ≤ y ≤ 1,” and as set forth in the office action, Li discloses the use of CuInS2/ZnS quantum dots in a luminescent concentrator (abstract), and therefore, satisfies the limitation recited in claim 50.
With regard to the rejection of claim 21, Applicant argues that adding a third sheet of glass, based on Memari’s teachings, are technologically incompatible with, and indeed counterproductive to, the optical-wave-guiding architecture taught by Klimov, Lunt or Li, and the proposed combination would not have been made by a person of ordinary skill who would also have lacked a reasonable expectation of success.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the assertion that Klimov, Li and Lunt are strictly single-wave-guide-designs is not germane to the prima facie case of obviousness set forth in the office action: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the window of modified Klimov in an insulating glass unit including double or triple pane glass, as disclosed by Memari, because as taught by Memari, and IGU offers an increase in performance over standard glazing because the sealed air space reduced heat gain, heat loss, and sound transmission ([0043]).
Additionally, Applicant’s assertion that “All three rely on a polymer/air interface to provide TIR” is incorrect because Klimov discloses in paragraph [0085]: “The polymer matrix may comprise a polymer suitable for processing into any desired form, such as: a planar substrate or self-standing bulk material; a coating film, such as for a coating on glass or plastic substrates; an intercalated layer, such as between two glass or plastic substrates, typically planar substrates; a fiber, such as an optical fiber made of polymeric materials (plastic optical fiber); or a viscous fluid suitable for making transparent packaging.”
Additionally, Klimov discloses in paragraph [0115] and depicts in Fig. 12, composition