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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 2/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2 are amended. Claims 11 and 21 are canceled. Currently, claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 12-15 and 18-20 are pending in the application with claims 12-15 and 18-20 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous 112 rejections of claim 21 is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-10 are rejected on a new ground of rejection. See the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. - 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 and 4-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the electrical ground” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. In addition, it is unclear if “the electrical ground” recited in claim 2 is the same as or different from “an electric ground” recited in line 3 of claim 1.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein the electrical ground that is separate from the flexible solar array” in lines 1-3, while claim 1 explicitly recites “flexible solar array … comprising an electric ground” in lines 1-3 – or an electric ground is included in the flexible solar array and not separate from the flexible solar array. Therefore, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claims 4-5 are rejected on the same ground as claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (US 2008/0053516) in view of Korman et al. (US 2005/0139253), and further in view of Lauinger (US 2012/0103399).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hayes discloses a solar array (or solar cell laminate shown fig. 4) comprising:
a power generating layer comprising a base layer (35) and a plurality of solar cells (33) comprising a photovoltaic material ([0044-0045]) that is applied to the base layer (35, see fig. 4); and
a durable layer (31 of polyester film 10 and 32) comprising a transparent or translucent polymer film of polyester (10, [0018], figs. 1 and 4) adhesively secured to the power generating layer by way of the primer (14) and adhesive encapsulant (32) as Hayes discloses the polyester film is with high adhesion ([0008]) and the encapsulant includes adhesive or is treated to enhance adhesion ([0050] and [0054]);
wherein a homogenous portion of the base layer (35) extends fully each of the plurality of solar cells (33) and the space between adjacent solar cells (33, see fig. 4), and the base layer (35) is glass (or layer 35, see [0035]).
Hayes teaches the solar cell array (or solar cell laminate) is flexible (see [0053]).
Hayes does not disclose including an ultraviolet radiation blocking layer on top of the durable layer such that the durable layer is disposed between the power generation layer and the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer, and the durable layer extend fully each of the plurality of solar cells and the space between adjacent solar cells.
Korman et al. teaches including an ultraviolet radiation blocking layer (see electrical conductive layer 46, figs. 5 and 7, [0023] and [0031]) comprising zinc oxide to capture electrons that are traveling in space that contact the solar array (or solar panel assemblies) and conducts electrons away from the solar cell to prevent electro-static discharge therein (see [0031]); wherein the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer (46, see figs. 5 and 7) is disposed on top of the durable layer (44) extends fully each of the plurality of solar cells (32/34/36/30) and the space between adjacent solar cells (see figs. 5 and 7) such that the durable layer (44) is between the power generation layer (32/34/36/30/40/42) and the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer (46, see figs. 5 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar array of Hayes by incorporating an ultraviolet radiation blocking layer comprising zinc oxide taught by Korman et al. on top of the durable layer (31/32) such that the durable layer (31/32) is disposed between the power generation layer (33-35) and the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer; because Korman et al. discloses the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer (46) would protect the solar cells on the second electrode side by covering the solar cells by conducting electrons away from solar cells to prevent electro-static discharge ([0031]).
Korman et al. teaches the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer (46) is a front conductive layer (see [0023] and [0031] of Korman et al.) and teaches connecting the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer (346). Modified Hayes does not explicitly disclose including an electric ground and a layer of conductive material disposed on an external surface of the base layer and extending fully each of the plurality of solar cells and a space between the adjacent solar cells such that the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer (or a top conductive layer) and the layer of conductive material (or a bottom conductive layer) are conductively connected to the electric ground.
Lauinger discloses including an electric ground (see frame FRM in figs. 1a-b, 2a-b, 3) and a layer of conductive material (see back panel PB made of metal in figs. 1-3, [0028]) on an external surface of the solar laminate (see figs. 1-3) and extending fully each of the plurality of solar cells (SZ) and a space between adjacent solar cells (SZ, see figs. 1b, 2b), wherein the front conductive layer (see conductive glass GLP/SC, [0011], [0030], claims 5-6, figs. 1-3) and the layer of conductive material (BP) is conductively connected to the electric ground (FRM, see figs. 1-3) to equipped the solar array (or the module) with an electrostatically effective covering to equalize the potentials between the solar cell string and the enclosure to ensure none of the components or even the entire construction is at risk of damage (see [0004-0019], [0029-0030], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar array of modified Hayes by incorporating an electric ground (or the frame FRM) and a layer of conductive material disposed on the external surface of the solar laminate, or the external surface of the base layer 35 of Hayes, and extending fully each of the plurality of solar cells and a space between adjacent solar cells such that the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer (or the front transparent conductive layer GLP or GLP/SC) and the layer of conductive material (or the back panel BP) are conductively connected to the electric ground (FRM) as taught by Lauinger; because Lauinger teaches such incorporation and connection would equip the solar array (or the module) with an electrostatically effective covering/enclosure to equalize the potentials between the solar cell string and the enclosure to ensure none of the components or even the entire construction is at risk of damage
Modified Hayes discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed solar cell array. Statement “for extraterrestrial deployment” in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art solar cell array. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115. Korman et al. teaches using solar cell array to be flexible for extraterrestrial deployment, or in an outer space environment or a non-earth environment (see title, [0001-0004]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hayes discloses a solar array (or solar cell laminate without frame disclosed by Hayes) as in claim 1 above, wherein the electrical ground (or the frame) is separate from the flexible solar array (or the solar cell laminate without frame).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hayes discloses a solar array as in claim 2 above, wherein Hayes discloses the photovoltaic material comprising a semiconductor (see [0044-0045]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hayes a solar array as in claim 2 above, wherein durable layer comprises polyester and the base comprising glass (see claim 1 above).
Modified Hayes does not explicitly disclose the durable layer comprises Mylar such that the durable and base having similar coefficients of expansion.
However, Korman et al. teaches Mylar is a tradename for polyester manufactured by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (see [0036] of Korman et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have used Mylar for the polyester film of the durable layer comprising polyester disclosed Hayes, because Korman et al. teaches Mylar is the tradename for polyester manufactured by E.I du Pont de Nemours & Co., which is commercially available and ready for use. As such, modified Hayes uses the same materials for the durable layer and the base layer as claimed and disclosed, therefore the durable layer and the base layer will display the same characteristic/property of having the similar coefficients of expansion as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hayes discloses a solar array as in claim 1 above, wherein the durable layer comprises polyester and the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer comprises zinc oxide (see claim 1 above).
Modified Hayes does not explicitly disclose the durable layer comprises Mylar.
However, Korman et al. teaches Mylar is a tradename for polyester manufactured by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (see [0036] of Korman et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have used Mylar for the polyester film of the durable layer comprising polyester disclosed Hayes, because Korman et al. teaches Mylar is the tradename for polyester manufactured by E.I du Pont de Nemours & Co., which is commercially available and ready for use.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hayes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heckeroth (US 2002/0129849).
Regarding claim 9, Hayes discloses a flexible solar array as claim 1 above.
Modified Hayes does not explicitly disclose combining the flexible array with a spool wherein the flexible solar array is rolled about a spindle of a spool.
Heckeroth discloses combining a flexible solar array with a spool (figs. 8-9), wherein the flexible solar array (10) is rolled about a spindle of a spool (see figs. 8-9) for dispensing the flexible solar array (or photovoltaic material) from the transport and storage spool (see figs. 7-9, [0037-0040]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made to have combined the flexible solar array of Hayes with a spool, wherein the flexible solar array is rolled about a spindle of a spool as taught Heckeroth, because Heckeroth discloses such combination would allow the flexible solar array to be stored, transported and dispensed from the transport and storage spool ([0037-0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 8-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied to the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues previously cited references do not teach an electric ground and the ultraviolet radiation blocking layer and the layer of conductive material are conductively connected to the electric ground as claimed. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights