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
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-20 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aspnes et al (PG pub 20130312811), and further in view of Pfenninger et al (PG pub 20090095341) and Escarra et al (Wo2014036406) and Torrance et al (PG Pub 20090032083)
Regarding claim 1, 21, Aspnes et al teaches a PV module comprising:
one or more spectrum splitting devices 108 [fig 1A para 55 56];
a plurality of photovoltaic cells 112 are spaced from the one or more spectrum splitting devices [para 12 58 fig 1 2],
at least one of the photovoltaic cells comprise a photovoltaic cell and at least one or more of the photovoltaic cells, wherein the one or more spectrum splitting devices are configured to selectively direct incident energy to one or more of the photovoltaic cells [fig 2], and
a spatial configuration of the one or more spectrum splitting devices and the plurality of photovoltaic cells are configured based on an optimization parameter[abstract]. Aspenes teaches selecting PV material, PV geometry, parameter of the hologram would be improving the efficiency; thus, by optimizing these factors, it would control the efficiency. Since the bifacial PV cell and the wide bandgap cells having dimensions or material which control the efficiency and there is the ratio of dimension or efficiency of the bifacial PV cell and the wide bandgap cells, it is considered that there is the optimization parameter based on the ratio of the PV cell and wide bandgap cells.
Aspnes et al teaches the array including whether monofacial or bifacial [para58], but Aspnes et al does not teach bifacial cell.
Pfenninger et al teaches a PV module comprising bifacial cell 120 122 being support by a substrate layer 110 with reflector 130 [fig 1 para 41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the PV module of Aspnes et al to include the bifacial solar cell and the substrate layer with reflector on the back as taught by Pfenninger et al for enhancing solar energy conversion efficiencies [para 41]. As for combination, plurality of the photovoltaic cells comprises a combination of bifacial photovoltaic cells and a non-bifacial.
Modified Aspnes et al teaches the plurality of PV cells being silicon [para 87], but Modified Aspnes eta l does not teach the solar cell being adjacent to second side being wide band gap cell.
Escarra et al teaches a PV module comprising a plurality of pV cell with different bandgap where there is wide bandgap cell being made of GaAs [fig 3]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify one of PV cells of modified Aspnes et al to be made of GaAs as taught by Escarra et al for absorbing different spectrum; thus, improving efficiency.
Modified Aspnes et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Aspnes et al does not teach the combination of bifacial and non-facial with the ratio being not 50/50.
Torrance et al teaches PV system comprising the combination of bifacial and non-bifacial solar cell [para 57]. Also, Torrance et al teaches the use of PV cells which have at least two different areas exposed to radiation (for example depending upon whether one or both sides of the PV cell are exposed), the exposed area of the solar cell (the exposed area is the area exposed to the sun where the exposed area would be one side or two sides of the solar cells) would be selected or adjusted for desire result [para 16]. Thus, it is considered that the ratio of the bifacial and non-bifacial would be optimized or adjusted or selected to achieve desired result.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the solar cells of modified Aspenes et al to have combination of bifacial and non-bifacial with ratio greater than 50/50 since Torrance et al teaches the exposed area of the solar cell would be select or adjusted for desire result. The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Since claim 5 requires the PV cell disposed adjacent the second side comprising GaAs cell, thus the wide bangap cell being GaAs cell.
Modified Aspnes et al teaches the at least one of the spectrums splitting devices comprises a holographic optical element [para 13, Aspenes et al]
Modified Aspenes et al teaches the design, parameter of the hologram is optimized or characterized to maximize the light concentrating to the pV cells; thus, maximizing the cell’s efficiency [para 81-86] (it is noted that the parameter includes thickness of the hologram). Also, since modified Aspenes et al teaches the claimed structure, it is considered that there are energy optimization parameters as claimed. Thus, modified Aspenes et al teaches a spatial configuration of the one or more spectrum splitting devices and the plurality of photovoltaic cells is configured based on at least two energy optimization parameters, wherein a first energy optimization parameter is a ratio of the number of bifacial photovoltaic cells to non-bifacial wide-bandgap cells, wherein a second optimization parameter is a transition wavelength position between at least one of the bifacial photovoltaic cells and at least one of the non-bifacial wide-bandgap cells, and wherein the transition wave position is configured based on at least one of short or long wavelength conversion efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, modified Aspnes et al teaches the at least one of the spectrum splitting devices is configured to allow a first wavelength band to pass there through and is further configured to diffract a second wavelength band [para 55].
Regarding claim 4, modified Aspnes et al teaches one or more of the photovoltaic cells comprises a silicon cell [para 49].
Regarding claim 5, modified Aspnes et al teaches one or more of the photovoltaic cells disposed adjacent a second side comprises a GaAs cell as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, modified Aspnes et al teaches the photovoltaic module is configured for one-axis tracking. The recitation “configure for… tracking” is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2111. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, modified Aspnes et al teaches a selection of the type of photovoltaic cell of one or more of the pluralities of photovoltaic cells is based on the optimization parameter [para 88 89]
Regarding claim 9, modified Aspnes et al teaches a method of making the PV module.
Regarding claim 10, modified Aspnes et al teaches A method of using the photovoltaic module.
Regarding claim 22, Aspnes et al teaches a PV module comprising:
one or more spectrum splitting devices 108 [fig 1A para 55 56];
a plurality of photovoltaic cells 112 are spaced from the one or more spectrum splitting devices [para 12 58 fig 1 2],
at least one of the photovoltaic cells comprise a photovoltaic cell and at least one or more of the photovoltaic cells, wherein the one or more spectrum splitting devices are configured to selectively direct incident energy to one or more of the photovoltaic cells [fig 2], and
a spatial configuration of the one or more spectrum splitting devices and the plurality of photovoltaic cells are configured based on an optimization parameter[abstract]. Aspenes teaches selecting PV material, PV geometry, parameter of the hologram would be improving the efficiency; thus, by optimizing these factors, it would control the efficiency. Since the bifacial PV cell and the wide bandgap cells having dimensions or material which control the efficiency and there is the ratio of dimension or efficiency of the bifacial PV cell and the wide bandgap cells, it is considered that there is the optimization parameter based on the ratio of the PV cell and wide bandgap cells.
the photovoltaic module is configured for one-axis tracking (vertical) [para 10]. Also, The recitation “configure for… tracking” is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2111. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
Aspnes et al teaches the array including whether monofacial or bifacial [para58], but Aspnes et al does not teach bifacial cell.
Pfenninger et al teaches a PV module comprising bifacial cell 120 122 being support by a substrate layer 110 with reflector 130 [fig 1 para 41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the PV module of Aspnes et al to include the bifacial solar cell and the substrate layer with reflector on the back as taught by Pfenninger et al for enhancing solar energy conversion efficiencies [para 41]. As for combination, plurality of the photovoltaic cells comprises a combination of bifacial photovoltaic cells and a non-bifacial.
Modified Aspnes et al teaches the plurality of PV cells being silicon [para 87], but Modified Aspnes eta l does not teach the solar cell being adjacent to second side being wide band gap cell.
Escarra et al teaches a PV module comprising a plurality of pV cell with different bandgap where there is wide bandgap cell being made of GaAs [fig 3]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify one of PV cells of modified Aspnes et al to be made of GaAs as taught by Escarra et al for absorbing different spectrum; thus, improving efficiency.
Modified Aspnes et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Aspnes et al does not teach the combination of bifacial and non-facial with the ratio being not 50/50.
Torrance et al teaches PV system comprising the combination of bifacial and non-bifacial solar cell [para 57]. Also, Torrance et al teaches the use of PV cells which have at least two different areas exposed to radiation (for example depending upon whether one or both sides of the PV cell are exposed), the exposed area of the solar cell (the exposed area is the area exposed to the sun where the exposed area would be one side or two sides of the solar cells) would be selected or adjusted for desire result [para 16]. Thus, it is considered that the ratio of the bifacial and non-bifacial would be optimized or adjusted or selected to achieve desired result.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the solar cells of modified Aspenes et al to have combination of bifacial and non-bifacial with ratio greater than 50/50 since Torrance et al teaches the exposed area of the solar cell would be select or adjusted for desire result. The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Since instant application and claim 5 shows the PV cell disposed adjacent the second side comprising GaAs cell, thus the wide bandgap cell being GaAs cell.
Modified Aspnes et al teaches the at least one of the spectrums splitting devices comprises a holographic optical element [para 13, Aspenes et al]
Modified Aspenes et al teaches the design, parameter of the hologram is optimized or characterized to maximize the light concentrating to the pV cells; thus, maximizing the cell’s efficiency [para 81-86] (it is noted that the parameter includes thickness of the hologram). Also, since modified Aspenes et al teaches the claimed structure, it is considered that there are energy optimization parameters as claimed. Thus, modified Aspenes et al teaches a spatial configuration of the one or more spectrum splitting devices and the plurality of photovoltaic cells is configured based on at least two energy optimization parameters, wherein a first energy optimization parameter is a ratio of the number of bifacial photovoltaic cells to non-bifacial wide-bandgap cells, wherein a second optimization parameter is a transition wavelength position between at least one of the bifacial photovoltaic cells and at least one of the non-bifacial wide-bandgap cells, and wherein the transition wave position is configured based on at least one of short or long wavelength conversion efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
None of cited references teaches the claimed ratio.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Modified Aspenes et al teaches the claimed ratio as set forth above.
Aspenes teaches away one axis tracking as claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Modified Aspenes et al teaches the PV module being configured for one -axis tracking (vertical) as set forth above. Also, The recitation “configure for… tracking” is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2111. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 Barton can be reached at 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726