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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karam et al. (US 2015/0243819) in view of Sun et al. (“Radiative cooling for concentrating photovoltaic systems”) in view of Li et al. (“A comprehensive photonic approach for solar cell cooling”).
Regarding claim 1, Karam discloses a cooled solar array (10; see Figure 1), comprising:
a downwardly-facing solar cell (22; see Figure 2);
a mirror positioned (30) below the solar cell and oriented to direct sunlight onto the solar cell ([0013]; see Figure 2);
a heat sink in thermal communication with the solar cell and disposed opposite the mirror (it is disclosed the receiver 70 is mounted to the inner surface 52 of the coverglass on which the solar cell 22 is mounted, where the receiver may include a heat sink that dissipates the heat from the solar cell to the coverglass; [0021]; see Figures 2 and 3);
wherein the heat sink is in thermal communication with the Earth’s atmosphere (it is inherent the coverglass would be in thermal communication with the Earth’s atmosphere);
wherein the heat sink has a finless flat-plate geometry (see receiver 70 in Figure 3); and
wherein the heat sink is in convective communication with ambient air (as set forth above).
Karam does not expressly disclose at least one radiative cooler operationally connected to the heat sink for radiating heat away from the solar cell, wherein the at least one radiative cooler is disposed between the heat sink and the mirror.
Li discloses it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a photonic cooler coating on the light impinging surface of a solar cell for cooling for best performance, such that it radiates heat away from the solar cell (page 774 first paragraph and page 775 second paragraph; see Figure 1b).
Sun discloses the use of a radiative cooler comprising soda lime glass due to its high mid-IR emittance and high solar transmission, allowing daytime radiative cooling even with direct sunlight (3.1 Radiative cooler design).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as incorporating a photonic cooler coating on the incident surface of the solar cell in the device of Karam, as taught by Li above, so that radiative cooling of the solar cell can be enhanced and part of the solar spectrum that does not contribute to photocurrent can be reflected away from the solar cell (page 775 second paragraph). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected soda lime glass as the radiative cooler material due to its high mid IR emittance and high solar transmission, as taught by Sun above.
It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Modified Karam does not expressly disclose the heat sink is in radiative communication through Earth’s atmosphere with outer space, but the reference discloses a coverglass (20) operationally connected to the heat sink opposite the mirror (see Figure 2).
Sun discloses the use of a radiative cooler with a multi-layer structure comprising a diamond heat spreader, soda lime glass and a porous soda lime glass for concentrating photovoltaic systems, where the radiative cooler comprising soda lime glass is on the back side of the photovoltaic device similar to the configuration of modified Karam (abstract; Figures 1A and 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as selecting a coverglass made of a multi-layer structure comprising porous low iron soda lime glass, low iron soda lime glass, and a diamond heat spreader in the device of modified Karam, as taught by Sun above, so that the solar cell can be cooled through radiative cooling under direct sunlight, where the cooler structure is mostly transparent with high solar transmission and has a higher cooling power in comparison to conventional metal coolers, as disclosed by Sun (Conclusions). It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
It is noted that modified Karam comprising the radiative cooler as taught by Sun would provide the heat sink to be in radiative communication through Earth’s atmosphere with outer space, as recited by the claim.
Regarding claim 2, modified Karam discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses an optical concentrator (secondary optical device 62) positioned between the mirror and the solar cell for focusing sunlight onto the solar cell ([0020]; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Karam discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the optical concentrator is a Fresnel lens (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Karam discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Sun further discloses the at least one radiative cooler is selected from the group consisting of soda lime glass, zinc sulfide, adhesive tape, and combinations thereof (soda lime glass, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 6, modified Karam discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the mirror is adapted to track a solar source of sunlight ([0014]) and wherein the heat sink radiates to an outer space location spaced from the solar source of sunlight (see Figure 1A of Sun).
Regarding claim 7, modified Karam discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a scaffold operationally connected to the solar cell and mirror (it is disclosed the array can be used in multiple applications where light energy is desired to be converted into electrical energy, including, a terrestrial portable power generator, an unmanned aerial vehicle, or a satellite ([0015]), such that part of those structures would act as a scaffold as claimed).
Regarding claim 10, Karam discloses a method for radiatively cooling a solar transducer, comprising:
a) positioning a mirror (30) to receive and reflect sunlight ([0014]);
b) positioning a solar cell (22) between the mirror and sunlight (see Figure 2);
c) orienting the solar cell to receive reflected sunlight from the mirror (inherent step as part of the function of the device; [0014] and [0023]);
d) positioning a heat sink in thermal communication with the solar cell and opposite the mirror (it is disclosed the receiver 70 is mounted to the inner surface 52 of the coverglass on which the solar cell 22 is mounted, where the receiver may include a heat sink that dissipates the heat from the solar cell to the coverglass; [0021]; see Figures 2 and 3); and
wherein the solar cell is also convectively cooled (from surrounding air; see Figure 2).
Karam does not expressly disclose positioning a radiative cooling element in thermal communication with the heat sink between the heat sink and the mirror.
Li discloses it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a photonic cooler coating on the light impinging surface of a solar cell for cooling for best performance, such that it radiates heat away from the solar cell (page 774 first paragraph and page 775 second paragraph; see Figure 1b).
Sun discloses the use of a radiative cooler comprising soda lime glass due to its high mid-IR emittance and high solar transmission, allowing daytime radiative cooling even with direct sunlight (3.1 Radiative cooler design).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as incorporating a photonic cooler coating on the incident surface of the solar cell in the device of Karam, as taught by Li above, so that radiative cooling of the solar cell can be enhanced and part of the solar spectrum that does not contribute to photocurrent can be reflected away from the solar cell (page 775 second paragraph). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected soda lime glass as the radiative cooler material due to its high mid IR emittance and high solar transmission, as taught by Sun above.
Modified Karam does not expressly disclose positioning a second radiative cooling element in thermal communication with the heat sink opposite the mirror for radiating energy skyward from the radiative cooling element, wherein the second radiative cooling element is exposed to open air for convective transfer of energy away therefrom, wherein the radiative cooling element has a finless flat plate geometry, but the reference discloses a coverglass (20) operationally connected to the heat sink opposite the mirror (see Figure 2).
Sun discloses the use of a radiative cooler with a multi-layer structure comprising a diamond heat spreader, soda lime glass and a porous soda lime glass for concentrating photovoltaic systems, where the radiative cooler comprising soda lime glass is on the back side of the photovoltaic device similar to the configuration of modified Karam (abstract; Figures 1A and 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as selecting a coverglass made of a multi-layer structure comprising porous low iron soda lime glass, low iron soda lime glass, and a diamond heat spreader in the device of modified Karam, as taught by Sun above, so that the solar cell can be cooled through radiative cooling under direct sunlight, where the cooler structure is mostly transparent with high solar transmission and has a higher cooling power in comparison to conventional metal coolers, as disclosed by Sun (Conclusions). It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
It is noted that the coverglass made of a multi-layer structure comprising porous low iron soda lime glass, low iron soda lime glass, and a diamond heat spreader would be capable of radiating energy skyward from the radiative cooling element, wherein the coverglass is exposed to open air for convective transfer of energy away therefrom, and wherein the coverglass has a finless flat plate geometry as recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, modified Karam discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses g) focusing reflected sunlight onto the solar cell through a lens (secondary optical device 62; [0020]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Karam discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses h) automatically orienting the mirror to receive maximum sunlight (it is disclosed an actuation device is provided for each reflector; [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Karam discloses a solar cell assembly (10; see Figure 1), comprising:
at least one solar cell (22);
a support structure (substrate 24) for supporting the at least one solar cell (see Figure 1);
at least one mirror (30) operationally connected to the support structure and positioned to reflect sunlight onto the at least one solar cell (see Figure 2; [0013]); and
at least one finless flat plane heat sink (receiver 70) operationally connected to the at least one solar cell (it is disclosed the receiver 70 is mounted to the inner surface 52 of the coverglass on which the solar cell 22 is mounted, where the receiver may include a heat sink that dissipates the heat from the solar cell to the coverglass; [0021]; see Figures 2 and 3).
Karam does not expressly disclose a first one radiative cooling element operationally connected to the at least one finless flat plane heat sink between the at least one heat sink and the at least one mirror for radiating energy skyward.
Li discloses it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a photonic cooler coating on the light impinging surface of a solar cell for cooling for best performance, such that it radiates heat away from the solar cell (page 774 first paragraph and page 775 second paragraph; see Figure 1b).
Sun discloses the use of a radiative cooler comprising soda lime glass due to its high mid-IR emittance and high solar transmission, allowing daytime radiative cooling even with direct sunlight (3.1 Radiative cooler design).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as incorporating a photonic cooler coating on the incident surface of the solar cell in the device of Karam, as taught by Li above, so that radiative cooling of the solar cell can be enhanced and part of the solar spectrum that does not contribute to photocurrent can be reflected away from the solar cell (page 775 second paragraph). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected soda lime glass as the radiative cooler material due to its high mid IR emittance and high solar transmission, as taught by Sun above.
Modified Karam does not expressly disclose a second radiative cooling element operationally connected to the at least one heat sink opposite the at least one mirror for radiating energy skyward, but the reference discloses a coverglass (20) operationally connected to the heat sink opposite the mirror (see Figure 2).
Sun discloses the use of a radiative cooler with a multi-layer structure comprising a diamond heat spreader, soda lime glass and a porous soda lime glass for concentrating photovoltaic systems, where the radiative cooler comprising soda lime glass is on the back side of the photovoltaic device similar to the configuration of modified Karam (abstract; Figures 1A and 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as selecting a coverglass made of a multi-layer structure comprising porous low iron soda lime glass, low iron soda lime glass, and a diamond heat spreader in the device of modified Karam, as taught by Sun above, so that the solar cell can be cooled through radiative cooling under direct sunlight, where the cooler structure is mostly transparent with high solar transmission and has a higher cooling power in comparison to conventional metal coolers, as disclosed by Sun (Conclusions). It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
It is noted that the coverglass made of a multi-layer structure comprising porous low iron soda lime glass, low iron soda lime glass, and a diamond heat spreader would be capable of radiating energy skyward as recited in the claim.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karam et al. (US 2015/0243819) in view of Sun et al. (“Radiative cooling for concentrating photovoltaic systems”) in view of Li et al. (“A comprehensive photonic approach for solar cell cooling”) in view of Falbel (US 2012/0167871).
Regarding claim 8, modified Karam discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a sun tracking controller (32) that adjusts the reflectors accordingly based on the output measured ([0027]-[0029]), but the reference does not expressly disclose a thermocouple connected in thermal communication with the solar cell.
Falbel discloses the use of a temperature sensor to detect a current temperature of a solar collection module to provide that information to the sun tracking controller ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thermocouple to be connected in communication with the solar cell in the device of modified Karam, as taught by Falbel, so that in response to detecting the current temperature of the solar cell to be above a predetermined threshold, the sun tracking controller can adjust the array so that the amount of irradiated and collected light is reduced in order to reduce potential damage and deterioration of the solar cells from excessive heat, as disclosed by Falbel ([0051]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Karam discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses an electronic controller ([0028]) operationally connected to the thermocouple (as set forth above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li does not teach positioning the photonic cooler between the solar panel and the source of light because the discussion of the cooler placement indicates that the cooler is placed such that it has access to the sky to allow for radiative cooling into the sky and that when the disclosed cooler did not have access to the sky, it would inhibit the function of the cooler layer.
However, Applicant did not cite where Li states that when the cooler does not have access to the sky, it would inhibit the function of the cooler layer. The only two mentioning of the word “sky” in Li is in paragraphs two and three, where Li states:
On the other hand, radiative heat exchange plays a significant role in the thermal balance of the solar cell. A solar cell is heated by the sun, and moreover it naturally faces the sky and therefore can radiate some of its heat out as infrared radiation (p. 774).
This radiative cooling approach is based on the fact that any sky-facing structure naturally has radiative access to the cold universe through Earth’s atmosphere’s transparency window between 8 and 13 µm (p. 774).
Nowhere do the two sentences state anything regarding inhibiting the function of the cooler layer and that heat cannot be radiated away from the solar cell through radiative heat exchange when it is not facing the sky. It is unclear if Applicant is asserting the radiative cooler must be facing the sky because it appears the instant application shows in Figure 2A the lower reference numeral 35 that is indicated as a radiative cooler to not be facing the sky but facing the mirror, such that a lack of enablement rejection would be included in the next correspondence depending on Applicant’s clarification regarding their argument as it appears to go against Applicant’s reasoning in the way a radiative cooler can function.
Applicant further argues Figure 2 of Karam discloses a cover glass (20) that represents the radiative cooler of claim 1 being opposite the mirror (30). However, nowhere does the Office Action state the cover glass (20) to read upon the radiative cooler of claim 1. Li was relied upon to teach the feature on page 4 of the Office Action.
Applicant also argues Sun discloses a cooler shown as being disposed on the PV module opposite the mirror and not between a heat sink and a mirror as claimed.
However, Sun was relied upon only to teach the use of soda lime glass as the radiative cooler material, as set forth on page 4 of the Office Action.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722