DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I directed to claims 1-19 and 28-29 in the reply filed on 20 March 2020 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 and 28-29 are presently under examination. Claims 20-27 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 13 and 16 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of electrically connected solar cells are encapsulated in a lightweight laminate having bifacial light-receiving faces, with an optically transparent protective cover sheet over an encapsulant sheet covering each of the bifacial light-receiving faces”, but it’s not clear if the encapsulant sheets and optically transparent protective cover sheet are part of the laminate, of if the laminate is being defined as a separate limitation from these features. As such, the scope of claim 2 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 13 is also rendered indefinite by depending from indefinite claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the plurality of bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells” but claim 4 lacks antecedent basis for this limitation and as such it’s not clear what plurality of bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells are being referenced in claim 4. As such, the scope of claim 4 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells” but claim 5 lacks antecedent basis for this limitation and as such it’s not clear what partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells are being referenced in claim 5. As such, the scope of claim 5 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells” but claim 6 lacks antecedent basis for this limitation and as such it’s not clear what partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells are being referenced in claim 6. As such, the scope of claim 6 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a plurality of partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells fully nested within the in-laminate frame, and covered on at least one of the bifacial light-receiving sides with optically-transparent protective cover sheets over encapsulant sheets” but the recitation “the bifacial light-receiving sides” lacks antecedent basis in the claim and it’s unclear what possible light-receiving sides are being referenced as claim 9 recites “a plurality of partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells” which are part of a plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats. Thus it’s not clear if the recited bifacial light-receiving sides are for the slats or said solar cells.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “in a range chosen within 0 and 90 degrees” but it’s not clear if this range is inclusive or exclusive of the endpoints of 0 and 90 degrees. As such, the scope of claim 16 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, 18, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Moslehi et al (US 2015/0101761) in view of Bhatia et al (US 2010/0243025).
Regarding claim 1 Moslehi discloses an apparatus coupled to receive the sunlight and generate photovoltaic electrical power comprising:
a vertically-deployable solar photovoltaic electricity generator constructed as an integrated assembly, operable in a photovoltaic electricity generation mode. storable in a volume compaction mode ([0003], [0012], [0029]-[0030], [0035], Figs. 2A and 2B see: solar blind system having solar blind slats 20 which can be lifted up to stack or deployed to receive light and generate power), and including:
a plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats with longer and shorter peripheral slat boundary sides that connect together adjacent ones of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats ([0003], [0032], [0035]-[0036], Figs. 1A and 2A see: solar cells 12/24/26 covering most or all of light receiving sides of slat cores 10/22),
with the longer boundary sides being substantially perpendicular to the direction of gravity in the volume compaction mode, with the longer boundary sides being substantially perpendicular to the direction of gravity in the photovoltaic electricity generation mode ([0003], [0032], [0035]-[0036], Figs. 1A and 2A see: the slats are
with adjacent ones of the slats within the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats being spaced apart by a finite gap allowing collection of the light on each of the bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats in the photovoltaic electricity generation mode ([0035]-[0036], Figs. 2A and 2B see: slats spaced apart vertically by gaps in deployed power generation mode), and
at least one power maximizing integrated circuit disposed on at least one of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats ([0042], [0053], [0055]-[0056] see: an MPPT power optimizer is integrated or embedded within the solar slat laminate),
wherein the plurality of the bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats are coupled to deliver a photovoltaic generation power through the power maximizing integrated circuit ([0053]-[0056] see: an MPPT power optimizer is associated with a single solar cell or plurality of interconnected solar cells and functions to optimize the power delivered from said solar cells), and
wherein the vertically-deployable solar photovoltaic electricity generator is set to the photovoltaic electricity generation mode when expanded and oriented along the force of gravity ([0003], [0012], [0029]-[0030], [0035], Figs. 2A and 2B see: solar blind system having solar blind slats 20 which can be deployed to receive light and generate power).
In the alterative, the prior art of Bhatia teaches an apparatus coupled to receive the sunlight and generate photovoltaic electrical power comprising a vertically-deployable solar photovoltaic electricity generator constructed as a portable integrated assembly, operable in a photovoltaic electricity generation mode and storable in a volume compaction mode (Bhatia, [0015]-[0017] Fig. 1 see: window treatment device 10 having slats 25 with photovoltaic generation components 30 that can be raised or lowered where the window treatment device can be portable and installed in front of a window on a temporary basis).
Therefore, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Moslehi in view of Bhatia such that the vertically-deployable solar photovoltaic electricity generator of Moslehi is constructed as a portable integrated assembly as taught by Bhatia (Bhatia, [0017]) to provide the functionality of allowing the apparatus of Moslehi to be installed in front of a window on a temporary basis as taught by Bhatia (Bhatia, [0017]).
Regarding claim 2 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats comprises a plurality of electrically connected solar cells with at least some of the plurality of solar cells connected in an electrical series ([0044], Fig. 4 see: series connected solar cells 42), and wherein the plurality of electrically connected solar cells are encapsulated in a lightweight laminate having bifacial light-receiving faces, with an optically transparent protective cover sheet over an encapsulant sheet covering each of the bifacial light-receiving faces ([0044], Fig. 4 see: series connected solar cells 42 encapsulated in laminate of encapsulants 54 and transparent covers 56).
Regarding claim 3 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats comprises a plurality of bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells ([0034], [0040] see: the solar cells can be flexible crystalline solar cells where the solar cell receive light from two opposed sides indoor/outdoor).
Regarding claim 4 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells are partitioned to scale down an electric current of each of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats by a current reduction scaling factor compared to the electric current of a non-partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cell, andClient Reference: SIG-003 wherein the partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells are coupled to convert light received on any one of the slat
Regarding claim 5 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 5, wherein the partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells are electrically connected together with at least some of the partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells being connected in electrical series, in a co-planar structure using copper electrical connectors ([0044], [0066]-[0067] Figs. 4-6 see: series connected solar cells 42 on slat core where solar cells 42 can be divided into smaller cells (Figs. 18-19) which are then connected in series and parallel (Fig. 22)).
Regarding claim 7 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein at least one power maximizing integrated is circuit disposed on each one of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats ([0042], [0053]-[0056] see: one or more MPPT power optimizers is integrated or embedded within the solar slat laminate and interconnected to one or more of the solar cells of the slat).
Regarding claim 8 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats is a multi-layer laminate structure with two light-receiving sides ([0044], Fig. 4 see: slats comprising a series connected solar cells 42 encapsulated in laminate of encapsulants 54 and transparent covers 56).
Regarding claim 9 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats has an in-laminate frame made of a fiber-reinforced polymeric composite material for structural and electrical interconnection support ([0044]-[0048] Figs. 5-9 see: slat core 72 is formed like the solar cell backplane of a prepreg(considered analogous to a fiber-reinforced polymeric composite) material with interconnects embedded therein), and a plurality of partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells fully nested within the in-laminate frame, and covered on at least one of the bifacial light-receiving sides with optically-transparent protective cover sheets over encapsulant sheets ([0044]-[0048], [0055], [0065] Figs. 5-9 and 11 see: slat core 72 is formed like the solar cell backplane with said embedded solar cells 42 and interconnects 44 where said cells can be partitioned as in Fig. 18 and covered with laminate of encapsulants 54 and transparent covers 56).
Regarding claim 10 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the generator is coupled to provide its photovoltaic power as a DC electric power output to a storage battery or a DC consumption load or both ([0056], see: MPPT power optimizer provides a DC output from the solar cells).
Regarding claim 11 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the generator is coupled to provide its photovoltaic power as an AC electric power output to an AC consumption load or to a storage battery as a DC power source
Regarding claim 13 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the longer peripheral slat boundary sides of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats are parallel to each other producing an open parallel-spaced structure when expanded for the photoelectric electricity generation mode, and wherein the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats are closely stacked together with negligible spacing between adjacent bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats when retracted for the volume compaction mode ([0003], [0032], [0035]-[0036], Figs. 2A and 2B see: the slats are structured as window blinds that can be lifted up to stack with a lift cord or deployed to receive light and generate power where a longer side of said slats parallel to each other in both configurations with said slats spaced apart vertically by gaps in deployed power generation mode and stacked close together when stored).
Regarding claim 14 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats have slat lengths along the longer peripheral slat boundary sides larger than slat widths along the shorter peripheral slat boundary sides, with both the slat lengths and slat widths being substantially larger than the thickness of each of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats (Figs. 2A-2B see slats 20 are dimensionally slat shaped as window blinds where their lengths and widths are greater than the thicknesses of the slats).
Regarding claim 15 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the power tracking integrated circuits is connected to at least one of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats to enhance the photovoltaic electricity generation power ([0042], [0053]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 16 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the angles of the shorter peripheral slat boundary sides with respect to the gravity force direction is adjustable in a range chosen within 0 and 90 degrees ([0036], Figs. 2A-2B see: slats 20 are adjustable with their boundary sides adjustable in a range between 0 and 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 18 Moslehi discloses a solar electricity generator comprising the apparatus according to Claim 1, deployed in a greenhouse or on an agricultural farm or on a building window or an electric vehicle ([0028]-[0029] see: slats are integrated installed as blinds for existing building windows).
Regarding claims 28 and 29 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claims 1 and 7, wherein the apparatus that is moveable in accordance with a position of the sun ([0036], Figs. 2A-2B see: slats 20 are adjustable with the position of the sun), and wherein the power maximizing integrated circuit is coupled to determine a placement position of the solar photovoltaic electricity generator based upon the detected position of the sun in the photovoltaic electricity generation mode ([0028], .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moslehi et al (US 2015/0101761) in view of Bhatia et al (US 2010/0243025) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, 18, and 28-29 above, and further in view of Morad (US 2015/0349703).
Morad discloses a plurality of partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells are electrically connected together with at least some of the partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells being connected in electrical series connected in series in an edge-on-edge overlapping structure (Morad, [0132], [0158], Figs. 1, 2A, 4A, and 8A-8C see: solar module with transparent front and backsheets 420/430 for bifacial operation having a plurality of series connected solar cell segments 10 which are overlapped to form a super cell 100). Morad teaches this configuration allows for more efficient use of an area taken up by the series connected solar cells (Morad, [0132]).
Morad and Moslehi are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar electricity generators.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Moslehi in view of Morad such that the apparatus comprises partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells electrically connected together with at least some of the partitioned bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells being connected in electrical series in series in an edge-on-edge overlapping structure as taught by Morad (Morad, [0132], [0158], Figs. 1, 2A, 4A, and 8A-8C see: solar module with transparent front and backsheets 420/430 for bifacial operation .
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moslehi et al (US 2015/0101761) in view of Bhatia et al (US 2010/0243025) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, 18, and 28-29 above, and further in view of Daniel (US 2010/0182218).
Regarding claim 12 Moslehi discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats are connected together but Moslehi does not explicitly disclose the structure of a plurality of electromechanical connectors attached to or near the shorter sides of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats, producing a retractable and expandable module structure, wherein the electromechanical connectors have any one of folding, pivoting, and hinging structures to enable the volume compaction mode and the photovoltaic electricity generation mode.
Daniel teaches a photovoltaic window treatment having a plurality of power generating slats where said slats are connected using a plurality of electromechanical connectors attached to or near the shorter sides of the plurality of photovoltaic power generating slats, producing a retractable and expandable module structure, wherein the electromechanical connectors have any one of folding, pivoting, and hinging structures to enable the volume compaction mode and the photovoltaic electricity generation mode (Daniel, [0046], [0050], Figs. 1-2 5, 8, and 11 see: louver segments 12 with solar cell
Daniel and Moslehi are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of photovoltaic window treatments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Moslehi in view of Daniel such that the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats of Moslehi are connected together using the structure of a plurality of electromechanical connectors attached to or near the shorter sides of the plurality of bifacial photovoltaic power generating slats, producing a retractable and expandable module structure, wherein the electromechanical connectors have any one of folding, pivoting, and hinging structures to enable the volume compaction mode and the photovoltaic electricity generation mode as taught by Daniel (Daniel, [0046], [0050], Figs. 1-2 5, 8, and 11 see: louver segments 12 with solar cell areas 44 where the louver segments are retractable and expandable using the folding frame elements 47) for the express purpose of providing a mechanism for the mechanical and electrical interconnection of the slats of Moslehi allowing them to expand and contract in a window blind configuration.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moslehi et al (US 2015/0101761) in view of Bhatia et al (US 2010/0243025) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, 18, and 28-29 above, and further in view of Muller (US 6,459,033)
Muller also discloses a portable photovoltaic window treatment that can be installed not only over building windows but also in vehicles including recreational vehicles and in rail cars and includes a battery and charging component for providing power to be taken out as desired by a device (Muller, C3/L35-67, C4/L35-40).
Muller and Moslehi are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of photovoltaic window treatments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the apparatus of Moslehi as a battery charger for an electric vehicle as taught by Muller (Muller, C3/L35-67, C4/L35-40) for the express purpose of providing power to loads such as lights of said vehicle.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moslehi et al (US 2015/0101761) in view of Bhatia et al (US 2010/0243025) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, 18, and 28-29 above, and further in view of Prypin et al (US 2016/0149538).
Prypin teaches such portable solar electric generators can be attached to different locations including vehicles, buildings and poles such as street lamps and provides power output to power electronic devices (Prypin, [0002]-[0003], [0013]-[0014]).
Prypin and Moslehi are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar electricity generators.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to attach the apparatus of Moslehi to a street light pole or an electricity distribution pole or a transmission tower or a telecommunication pole or a telecommunication cell tower as taught by Prypin (Prypin, [0002]-[0003], [0013]-[0014]) for the express purpose of providing portable power generation to electronic devices as taught by Prypin (Prypin, [0002]-[0003], [0013]-[0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am-8pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached on 571-272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights