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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 11th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(a) rejections of claims 25, 6-8, 15, 17, 20-22 and 24 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over McDaniel et al. in view of Ebisawa et al. are maintained, the rejections based over McDaniel et al. in view of Bhaumik et al. are maintained and the rejections based over McDaniel et al. in view of Russo et al. are maintained.
The rejections based over Govaerts et al. is withdrawn.
New rejections follow.
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 1-3, 5-13, 15, 17, and 19-24 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a color-neutral window”. Its unclear if Applicant is further limiting the “a window” in the preamble or if the claim recites two different distinct windows. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McDaniel et al. (US 2017/0341346 A1) as evidenced by 405nm “Which color of light has the shortest wavelength” in view of Ebisawa et al. “Solar control coating on glass”.
In view of Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner, McDaniel et al. discloses a window (Figure 10, #1003) comprising:
first (Figure 10, #1002 leftmost element) and second panes of glass (Figure 10, #1002 middlemost element & Paragraph 0071); alternatively, the first (Figure 10, #1002, leftmost element) and second panes of glass (Figure 10, #1002, rightmost element & Paragraph 0071);
a luminescent concentrator (Figure 10, #1001 & Paragraph 0004) comprising:
a waveguide which includes said first pane of glass (Figure 10, #1002 sandwiches #1001 & Figure 1, #102 & Paragraph 0004);
a collection surface which directs radiation impingement upon it into said waveguide (Figure 1, #102 the outside perimeter surface);
an emission surface which is smaller than said collection surface and which extracts radiation from said waveguide, wherein said waveguide guides radiation to said emission surface and concentrates the radiation as it does so (Figure 1, #102 the bottom surface coupled to element 104 & Paragraph 0004);
a first light-absorbing species having a first absorption spectrum, wherein said first light-absorbing species is a fluorophore, and wherein said first absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs).
Applicant discloses that the preferred first light-absorbing species is CuInS2/ZnS QDs (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0049).
a reflective layer that is reflective in at least one of an infrared or near-infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum (Paragraph 0060 – it’s a low-emissivity coating), wherein said reflective layer has at least one transmission band in a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum (the window transmits light so it must inherently have this characteristic or it would be opaque and thus not a window) wherein the reflective layer is disposed upon a surface of the glass facing the light source which in the instant case corresponds to the second pane of glass (Figure 10, #1002 middlemost element and rightmost element can comprise a reflective coating with these characteristics & Paragraph 0060 & See Annotated McDaniel et al. Figure 3, below when middlemost element comprises reflective coating);
Annotated McDaniel et al. Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
451
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein said reflective layer is a coating disposed on said second sheet of glass, wherein said coating has a reflection band in a blue region of the spectrum because the coating keeps all light internally reflected in the visible wavelengths of light that comprise the blue spectrum (Paragraph 0060);
McDaniel et al. teaches that the coating may be reflective to visible wavelengths of light which keeps the light emitted from the fluorophores internally reflected (Paragraph 0060). As can be seen in McDaniel et al. Figure 5, there is at least one fluorophore configured to emit in a blue region of the visible light spectrum (Figure 5, second emission peak from the right). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ensure that the coating has a reflection band in a blue region of the spectrum as McDaniel et al. discloses fluorophores that emit in the blue region of the electromagnetic spectrum and one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the coating that is capable of reflecting visible wavelengths of light which keeps the light emitted from the fluorophores internally reflected would have a reflection band in a blue region of the spectrum. Thus, McDaniel et al. discloses “wherein said reflective layer increases light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum”.
Alternatively, McDaniel et al. discloses “In the preferred embodiment, there is a coating on both outer glass surfaces that selectively reflects the light emitted from the fluorophores in order to keep that light internally reflected” (Paragraph 0060). McDaniel et al. also discloses the wavelengths that are emitted from the fluorophores are between 400-1300 nm (Paragraph 0062) while also disclosing, “Conversely, as QD sizes decrease, their absorption onset and PL spectra shift towards bluer wavelengths” (Paragraph 0039). McDaniel et al. discloses a specific example where the quantum yield of a final composite is measured at 77% when illuminated with 440 nm light (Paragraph 0064). Accordingly, as evidenced by McDaniel et al. the resulting reflective layer would have a coating that selectively reflects the light emitted from the fluorophore, in the instant case McDaniel et al. discloses that 440 nm is a preferred wavelength of the first light-absorbing species. It’s noted that 440 nm corresponds to a “reflection band in a blue region of the spectrum”, the resulting reflective layer would have a reflection band in a blue region of the spectrum such that the at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum that encompasses wavelength 440 nm with the goal of keeping the light emitted from the fluorophore internally reflected. Thus, McDaniel et al. discloses “wherein said reflective layer increases light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum”.
Alternatively, its noted that the range 400-1300 nm encompasses the “blue regions” of the visible spectrum corresponding to approximately 400 nm to 510 nm as evidenced below by 405nm. More specifically, McDaniel et al. discloses that the first light absorbing species can have emission peaks in the visible range from 400-650 nm (Paragraph 0044), wherein its also disclosed by McDaniel et al. that the reflective layer matches the emission peaks of the first light absorbing species in order to internally reflect the light (Paragraph 0060 – “reflects the light emitted from the fluorophores”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranges disclosed by McDaniel et al. (400-650 nm) for the first light-absorbing species because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In the instant case, when the first light absorbing species are within this range, the reflective layer would reflect the ranges of 400-650 nm, which encompasses blue regions of the spectrum. Thus, McDaniel et al. discloses “wherein said reflective layer increases light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum”.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would select a coating that reflects blue light as McDaniel et al. discloses that the photoluminescence spectra of certain size QDs have bluer wavelengths because different colored QDs may be attractive for different applications or different settings (Paragraph 0039) and that the reflective layer matches the emission peaks of the first light absorbing species in order to internally reflect the light (Paragraph 0060 – “reflects the light emitted from the fluorophores”). McDaniel et al. discloses that the QDs may have tunable spectra with peaks in the visible region that encompass the entirety of blue regions of the electromagnetic spectrum (Paragraph 0044 – contain non carcinogenic QDs having tunable PL spectra with peaks in the visible (400-650 nm)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the reflective layer that is a coating with a reflection band in the blue region of the spectrum for the advantage of having different colored QDs that may be attractive for different applications or settings and to ensure that the reflective layer is keeping the light emitting from the fluorophores totally internally reflected. Thus, McDaniel et al. discloses “wherein said reflective layer increases light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum”
The Examiner notes that a blue region of visible light corresponds anywhere from a bluish purple approximately at 400 nm to a bluish green at approximately 510 nm. This is evidenced by 405 nm (See Annotated 405nm Visible Spectrum, below).
Annotated 405nm Visible Spectrum
PNG
media_image2.png
553
1061
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While McDaniel et al. discloses that the reflective layer is a low-emissivity coating, its not disclosed that it’s a low-e coating that comprises a TCO or alternating dielectric and metal coatings.
Ebisawa et al. teaches reflective layers that are low-emissivity coatings that are either TCO or alternating dielectric and metal coatings, wherein both of these types of low-E coatings are available on the market (Page 2, Right Column, Low-E coating, 3rd Paragraph). Ebisawa et al. teaches that a TCO type low-product can be preferred within the figure of merit in a cold climate dominated region which solar heat gain is expected in the daytime at the cost of less thermal insulating at night (Page 4, Left Column 1st Paragraph), and that silver-based multilayer stack low-E coatings are also useful as a solar control coating because of its reflectivity at near infrared wavelengths (Page 3, Right Column, Last Paragraph) and that they have small absorption over the whole solar spectrum (Page 3, Left Column, 2nd Paragraph). Ebisawa et al. discloses the spectra for the low-E alternating dielectric and metal coatings (silver-based multilayer stack), and they reflect portions of IR and near IR-wavelengths while reflecting in the blue regions of the electromagnetic spectrum (Fig. 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the low-emissivity reflective coating that is an alternating dielectric/metal coating stack as disclosed by Ebisawa et al. as the low-emissivity coating of McDaniel et al. for the advantages of using a solar control coating that’s useful at reflecting near IR wavelengths and has a small absorption over the whole spectrum.
In regards to the limitation that “optical properties of the first light-absorbing species and the reflective layer are configured to collectively provide a color-neutral window”, Applicant discloses that the preferred first light-absorbing species is CuInS2/ZnS QDs (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0049). McDaniel et al. discloses the same material as Applicant, (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs). Applicant discloses that the reflective layer that can be configured to collectively provide a color-neutral window is a low-emissivity coating such as transparent conducting oxides or alternating dielectric and metal coatings (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0061). Ebisawa et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to substitute the low-E coating of McDaniel et al. with TCO or alternating dielectric and metal coatings (Page 2, Right Column, Low-E coating, 3rd Paragraph). The only difference in McDaniel et al. and Applicant’s claimed structure is the choice of material for the low-E coating to which Ebisawa et al. discloses these are known material choices for low-E coatings that are advantageous in controlling near IR wavelengths and a small absorption over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The combination of McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. would result in the “inherent characteristic” limitation of “optical properties of the first light-absorbing species and the reflective layer are configured to collectively provide a color neutral window” because it necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See MPEP 2112, III-IV.
In view of Claim 2, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches a photovoltaic device, wherein said luminescent concentrator outputs concentrated radiation, and wherein said photovoltaic device converts said concentrated radiation into electricity (Figure 1, #104 & Paragraph 0004).
In view of Claim 3, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches that the first light-absorbing species is a plurality of quantum dots (Figure 5 & Paragraph 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs).
In view of Claim 5, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches that the fluorophore is a plurality of quantum dots comprising a material selected from CuInS2 (Paragraph 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs).
In view of Claim 6, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 25. McDaniel et al. teaches that the waveguide comprises a medium, and wherein said medium comprises a material selected from the group consisting of EVA, PVB, thermoelectric polyurethane, PMMA, poly(lauryl methacrylate), acrylate polymer, urethanes, vinyl polymer, cellulose, ionomer, ionoplast, cyclic olefin polymer, epoxies and silicone (Claim 6).
In view of Claim 7, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. McDaniel et al. discloses that the medium is an extruded article (Paragraph 0063).
In view of Claim 9, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches a third sheet of glass (Figure 10, #1002 middlemost element) and a medium disposed between said first and third sheets of glass and wherein said medium contacts said first and third sheet of glass across first and second non-reflective interfaces (Paragraph 0060) and contains said first light-absorbing species (Figure 10, #1001 is sandwiched between elements #1002 & Paragraph 0071).
In view of Claim 10, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches that the fluorophore has a quantum yield of at least 50% (Paragraph 0059).
In view of Claim 11, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches that the fluorophore has an emission peak between 400 nm and 1300 nm (Paragraph 0014).
In view of Claim 12, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches the fluorophore has a self-absorption of less than 50% of its photoluminescence across the integrated spectrum over distances of at least 1 cm (Paragraph 0023-0024).
In view of Claim 13, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. discloses that the fluorophore has a Stokes shift of greater than 100 meV (Paragraph 0040).
In view of Claims 15 and 17, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. discloses a reflective layer having a transmission spectrum, wherein said transmission spectrum has a visible range with at least one transmission band therein, wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator (reflects the light emitted from the fluorophores in order to keep that light internally reflected) over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum (the window transmits light so it must inherently have this characteristic or it would be opaque and thus not a window) wherein the reflective layer is disposed upon a surface of the glass facing the light source which in the instant case corresponds to the second pane of glass (Figure 10, #1002 rightmost element can comprise a reflective coating with these characteristics & Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 17, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. McDaniel et al. discloses “In the preferred embodiment, there is a coating on both outer glass surfaces that selectively reflects the light emitted from the fluorophores in order to keep that light internally reflected” (Paragraph 0060). McDaniel et al. also discloses the wavelengths that are emitted from the fluorophores are between 400-1300 nm (Paragraph 0062) while also disclosing, “Conversely, as QD sizes decrease, their absorption onset and PL spectra shift towards bluer wavelengths” (Paragraph 0039). McDaniel et al. discloses a specific example where the quantum yield of a final composite is measured at 77% when illuminated with 440 nm light (Paragraph 0064). Accordingly, as evidenced by McDaniel et al. the coating would have a reflection band at least between a range of 400-1300 nm and can be selected to be “bluer” corresponding to a blue region of the spectrum.
Alternatively, in regards to the “said coating has a reflection band…in a blue region of the spectrum”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by McDaniel et al. (400-1300 nm) because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would select a coating that reflects blue light as McDaniel et al. discloses that the photoluminescence spectra of certain size QDs have bluer wavelengths, therefore a coating would be selected to that reflects said blue wavelengths and thus would reflect said blue wavelengths.
The Examiner notes that a blue region of visible light corresponds anywhere from a bluish purple approximately at 400 nm to a bluish green at approximately 510 nm.
In view of Claim 19, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Ebisawa et al. teaches that the reflective layer has a maximum transmission in an infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum of less than 0.65 (Fig. 3, there are points present that are less than 0.65).
Claims 8, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McDaniel et al. (US 2017/0341346 A1) as evidenced by 405nm “Which color of light has the shortest wavelength” in view of Ebisawa et al. “Solar control coating on glass” in view of Govaerts et al. (US 2009/0205701 A1)
In view of Claim 8, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. McDaniel et al. teaches that the first light absorbing species is embedded in the polymeric medium (Figure 6 & Paragraph 0064), but does not disclose a second light absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein and wherein said first and second light absorbing species are embedded in said medium.
Govaerts et al. teaches an element that is selected from a second-light absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 1-2, #110 & Paragraph 0029 & 0088 – Victoria Blue dye). Its noted Victoria Blue dye is a preferred element as a second light-absorbing species (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0009 & 0055). Govaerts et al. discloses that the at least one element comprises a Victoria Blue Dye (Figure 1-2, #110 & Paragraph 0029 & 0088). Applicant discloses that Victoria Blue dye is a preferred material for the second light-absorbing species (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0055-0058). Govaerts et al. discloses that there is a need in the art for luminescent solar collectors which have improved appearance while maintaining the desired level of edge emission (Paragraph 0012). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a second light-absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein, wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum as disclosed by Govaerts et al. in McDaniel et al. window such that said at least one element is disposed upon the second pane of glass as McDaniel et al. teaches that the medium is sandwiched between the first and second panes of glass and it would be obvious to include the second light-absorbing species of Govaerts et al. within that “sandwiched” structure.
In regards to the limitation that the “first light-absorbing species has a stronger absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said second light-absorbing species has stronger absorption in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum”, McDaniel et al. discloses a first light-absorbing species having a first absorption spectrum, wherein said first light-absorbing species is a fluorophore, and wherein said first absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs). Applicant discloses that the preferred first light-absorbing species is CuInS2/ZnS QDs (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0049). Govaerts et al. teaches an element that is selected from a second-light absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 1-2, #110 & Paragraph 0029 & 0088 – Victoria Blue dye). Its noted Victoria Blue dye is a preferred element as a second light-absorbing species (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0009 & 0055). Thus modified McDaniel et al. teaches the same materials for a first and second light-absorbing species as Applicant and thus will display the properties when combined of having “first light-absorbing species has a stronger absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said second light-absorbing species has stronger absorption in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum”.
Govaerts et al. was relied upon to teach why it was obvious to have the second light absorbing species embedded in polymeric medium with the first light absorbing species (Figure 2, #200 & Paragraph 0027) e.g., the second light-absorbing species of Govaerts et al. can be embedded in the same polymeric medium as an additional light absorbing species (Figure 2, #110 & #120 – Paragraph 0027). Its also important to note that polymeric layers 100/200 of Govaerts et al. are not necessarily different layers as they can comprise the same polymeric material and thus read on a “polymeric medium” (Paragraph 0032 – two layers comprising the same material can collectively be referred to as a “polymeric medium”).
In view of Claim 20, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. McDaniel et al. teaches that the first light absorbing species is embedded in the polymeric medium (Figure 6 & Paragraph 0064), but does not disclose a second light absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein and wherein said first and second light absorbing species are embedded in said medium.
Govaerts et al. teaches an element that is selected from a second-light absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 1-2, #110 & Paragraph 0029 & 0088 – Victoria Blue dye). Its noted Victoria Blue dye is a preferred element as a second light-absorbing species (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0009 & 0055). Govaerts et al. discloses that the at least one element comprises a Victoria Blue Dye (Figure 1-2, #110 & Paragraph 0029 & 0088). Applicant discloses that Victoria Blue dye is a preferred material for the second light-absorbing species (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0055-0058). Govaerts et al. discloses that there is a need in the art for luminescent solar collectors which have improved appearance while maintaining the desired level of edge emission (Paragraph 0012). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a second light-absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein, wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum as disclosed by Govaerts et al. in McDaniel et al. window such that said at least one element is disposed upon the second pane of glass as McDaniel et al. teaches that the medium is sandwiched between the first and second panes of glass and it would be obvious to include the second light-absorbing species of Govaerts et al. within that “sandwiched” structure.
In regards to the limitation that the “first light-absorbing species has a stronger absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said second light-absorbing species has stronger absorption in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum”, McDaniel et al. discloses a first light-absorbing species having a first absorption spectrum, wherein said first light-absorbing species is a fluorophore, and wherein said first absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs). Applicant discloses that the preferred first light-absorbing species is CuInS2/ZnS QDs (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0049). Govaerts et al. teaches an element that is selected from a second-light absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 1-2, #110 & Paragraph 0029 & 0088 – Victoria Blue dye). Its noted Victoria Blue dye is a preferred element as a second light-absorbing species (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0009 & 0055). Thus modified McDaniel et al. teaches the same materials for a first and second light-absorbing species as Applicant and thus will display the properties when combined of having “first light-absorbing species has a stronger absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said second light-absorbing species has stronger absorption in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum”.
Govaerts et al. was relied upon to teach why it was obvious to have the second light absorbing species embedded in polymeric medium with the first light absorbing species (Figure 2, #200 & Paragraph 0027) e.g., the second light-absorbing species of Govaerts et al. can be embedded in the same polymeric medium as an additional light absorbing species (Figure 2, #110 & #120 – Paragraph 0027). Its also important to note that polymeric layers 100/200 of Govaerts et al. are not necessarily different layers as they can comprise the same polymeric material and thus read on a “polymeric medium” (Paragraph 0032 – two layers comprising the same material can collectively be referred to as a “polymeric medium”).
In view of Claim 24, McDaniel et al., Ebisawa et al., and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. McDaniel et al. teaches that the second sheet of glass (Figure 10, #1002 middlemost element) is in direct contact with the waveguide (Figure 10, #1002 leftmost and middlemost element sandwich #1001 together).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McDaniel et al. (US 2017/0341346 A1) as evidenced by 405nm “Which color of light has the shortest wavelength” in view of Ebisawa et al. “Solar control coating on glass” in view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0194555 A1).
In view of Claim 23, McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Modified McDaniel et al. does not disclose the second sheet of glass is spaced apart from said waveguide, and wherein said waveguide includes said third sheet of glass.
Zhang et al. discloses a configuration where a first light absorbing species is sandwiched by first and third sheets of glass and a second light absorbing species is sandwiched by second and fourth sheets of glass (Figure 18, #111 & Paragraph 0125) such that the second sheet of glass is spaced apart from said waveguide, and wherein said waveguide includes said third sheet of glass (Figure 18, #113). Zhang et al. teaches that the shape of the luminescent concentrator device helps to concentrate the solar energy towards the edges because the incoming photon which may be incident on the device in a variety of angles can be re-emitted in a direction that will internally reflect within the device rather than in a direction that will cause it to exit the device (Paragraph 0094) and that the glass plates also act to internally reflect and refract photons toward the edge surface (Paragraph 0096). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the glass sheet configuration of Zhang et al. in modified McDaniel et al. window such that the second sheet of glass is spaced apart from said waveguide, and wherein said waveguide includes said third sheet of glass the advantage of having a shape of a luminescent concentrator device helps to concentrate the solar energy towards the edges because the incoming photon which may be incident on the device in a variety of angles can be re-emitted in a direction that will internally reflect within the device rather than in a direction that will cause it to exit the device and because this configuration of glass plates advantageously acts to internally reflect and refract photons toward the edge surface.
Claims *** are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McDaniel et al. (US 2017/0341346 A1) in view of Bhaumik et al. (US 2010/0043878 A1) as evidenced by 405nm “Which color of light has the shortest wavelength”.
In view of Claim 25, McDaniel et al. discloses a window (Figure 10, #1003) comprising:
first (Figure 10, #1002 leftmost element) and second panes of glass (Figure 10, #1002 middlemost element & Paragraph 0071); alternatively, the first (Figure 10, #1002, leftmost element) and second panes of glass (Figure 10, #1002, rightmost element & Paragraph 0071);
a luminescent concentrator (Figure 10, #1001 & Paragraph 0004) comprising:
a waveguide which includes said first pane of glass (Figure 10, #1002 sandwiches #1001 & Figure 1, #102 & Paragraph 0004);
a collection surface which directs radiation impingement upon it into said waveguide (Figure 1, #102 the outside perimeter surface);
an emission surface which is smaller than said collection surface and which extracts radiation from said waveguide, wherein said waveguide guides radiation to said emission surface and concentrates the radiation as it does so (Figure 1, #102 the bottom surface coupled to element 104 & Paragraph 0004);
a first light-absorbing species having a first absorption spectrum, wherein said first light-absorbing species is a fluorophore, and wherein said first absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs).
Applicant discloses that the preferred first light-absorbing species is CuInS2/ZnS QDs (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0049).
McDaniel et al. does not explicitly disclose that the luminescent concentrator comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of a second light-absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein, and wherein said first light-absorbing species has strong absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum than a red region of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein said at least one element is disposed upon or incorporated into said second pane of glass but does disclose quantum dots can achieve a wide range of emission spectra with a plurality of fluorophores (Paragraph 0062).
Bhaumik et al. discloses that additional dyes may be added to a single layer sheet analogous to McDaniel (Figs. 2-3, multiple fluorophores present - Paragraph 0090-0091). Bhaumik et al. discloses that each type of photocell has a “sweet spot” or a range of wavelengths (light energy) which it converts most efficiently into electric energy and thus the photocell should be selected to that its sweet spot matches the light as much as possible emitted by the sheet of the luminescent solar concentrator (Paragraph 0096). Bhaumik et al. shows that the dyes can be selected to have absorption regions in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum (Fig. 4 & Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the first light absorbing species of McDaniel et al. with an additional “second” light absorbing species from the list of quantum dots as disclosed by McDaniel et al. because the substituted components and the quantum dots function is known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known quantum dot for another and the results of that substitution would have been predictable as this is known as a desirable configuration by one of ordinary skill in the art and be advantageous in matching the emitting light of a luminescent solar concentrator with the sweet spot of a corresponding solar cell. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
As pointed out above, McDaniel et al. discloses the same first light absorbing species as Applicant (CuInS2/Zn QDs), and additionally discloses the same exemplarily quantum dots as Applicant (Paragraph 0053 is the same quantum dots recited as Applicant’s instant disclosure in US PGPub – Paragraph 0042).
In regards to the limitation that “and wherein said first light-absorbing species has strong absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum than a red region of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein said at least one element is disposed upon or incorporated into said second pane of glass”, modified McDaniel et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “said first light-absorbing species has strong absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum than a red region of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein said at least one element is disposed upon or incorporated into said second pane of glass”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Bhaumik et al. discloses that additional dyes may be added to a single layer sheet analogous to McDaniel (Figs. 2-3, multiple fluorophores present - Paragraph 0090-0091). Bhaumik et al. discloses that each type of photocell has a “sweet spot” or a range of wavelengths (light energy) which it converts most efficiently into electric energy and thus the photocell should be selected to that its sweet spot matches the light as much as possible emitted by the sheet of the luminescent solar concentrator (Paragraph 0096). Bhaumik et al. shows that the dyes can be selected to have absorption regions in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum (Fig. 4 & Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the first light absorbing species of McDaniel et al. with an additional “second” light absorbing species from the list of quantum dots as disclosed by McDaniel et al. because the substituted components and the quantum dots function is known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known quantum dot for another and the results of that substitution would have been predictable as this is known as a desirable configuration by one of ordinary skill in the art and be advantageous in matching the emitting light of a luminescent solar concentrator with the sweet spot of a corresponding solar cell. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
As pointed out above, McDaniel et al. discloses the same first light absorbing species as Applicant (CuInS2/Zn QDs), and additionally discloses the same exemplarily quantum dots as Applicant (Paragraph 0053 is the same quantum dots recited as Applicant’s instant disclosure in US PGPub – Paragraph 0042). Thus McDaniel et al. discloses that the first light-absorbing species has a stronger region in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum than a red region of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Additionally, this is shown in Figure 4 of McDaniel.
Alternatively, Bhaumik et al. discloses that additional dyes may be added to a single layer sheet analogous to McDaniel (Figs. 2-3, multiple fluorophores present - Paragraph 0090-0091). Bhaumik et al. discloses examples where the fluorophores have a stronger absorption in the red region than in the blue region of the electromagnetic spectrum (Fig. 4, the dyes are not transmitting as much in the red region ~600-650 nm than in the blue region ~420-490 nm & See Annotated 405nm Visible Spectrum, below). Bhaumik et al. discloses that each type of photocell has a “sweet spot” or a range of wavelengths (light energy) which it converts most efficiently into electric energy and thus the photocell should be selected to that its sweet spot matches the light as much as possible emitted by the sheet of the luminescent solar concentrator (Paragraph 0096). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate an additional fluorophore of Bhaumik et al. into McDaniel et al. LSC for the advantage of matching the “sweet spot” of the solar cell with as much light as possible emitted by the sheet of the luminescent solar concentrator.
Annotated 405nm Visible Spectrum
PNG
media_image2.png
553
1061
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 15, McDaniel et al. and Bhaumik et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 25. McDaniel et al. discloses a window unit comprises the luminescent concentrator (Figure 10). Govaerts et al. was relied upon to teach why it would be obvious to have at least one element disposed on a surface of said luminescent concentrator (Figure 1-2, #200 is adjacent to the surface of an LSC).
In view of Claim 17, McDaniel et al. and Bhaumik et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 25. Bhaumik et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to include a second-light absorbing species in conjunction with the teachings of McDaniel. McDaniel et al. teaches that the QDs can be disposed in layers (Fig. 7), thus modified McDaniel et al. discloses that the second light absorbing species can be applied as a coating on said second sheet of glass.
In regards to the limitation that “said coating has a reflection band or absorption band in a blue region of the electromagnetic spectrum”, modified McDaniel et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “said coating has a reflection band or absorption band in a blue region of the electromagnetic spectrum”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 21, McDaniel et al. and Bhaumik et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches the first (Figure 10, #1002 leftmost element) and second panes of glass (Figure 10, #1002 rightmost element & Paragraph 0071) are spaced apart from each other (see gap between panes).
In view of Claim 22, McDaniel et al. and Bhaumik et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. McDaniel et al. teaches that there is a gap (see gap between panes Figure 10). It’s the Examiner’s position that absent a teaching of a vacuum (which there is none in McDaniel) that on planet earth, the atmosphere is filled with air and its either evident or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a gap would be filled with air.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al. (US 2017/0341346 A1) in view of Bhaumik et al. (US 2010/0043878 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0194555 A1).
In view of Claim 21, McDaniel et al. and Bhaumik et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified McDaniel et al. does not disclose said first and second sheets of glass are spaced apart from each other across a gap.
Zhang et al. discloses a configuration where a first light absorbing species is sandwiched by first and third sheets of glass and a second light absorbing species is sandwiched by second and fourth sheets of glass (Figure 18, #111 & Paragraph 0125) such that the first and second sheets of glass are spaced apart from each other across a gap (Figure 18, #113). Zhang et al. teaches that the shape of the luminescent concentrator device helps to concentrate the solar energy towards the edges because the incoming photon which may be incident on the device in a variety of angles can be re-emitted in a direction that will internally reflect within the device rather than in a direction that will cause it to exit the device (Paragraph 0094) and that the glass plates also act to internally reflect and refract photons toward the edge surface (Paragraph 0096). Zhang et al. teaches that wavelength conversion layers (analogous to layers comprises first and second light absorbing species) are attached to at least glass plate (Figure 18, #111) such that once the photons are absorbed and re-emitted they are internally reflected and refracted within the coupled wavelength conversion layer (Paragraph 0108) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the glass sheet configuration of Zhang et al. in modified McDaniel et al. window such that first and second sheets of glass are spaced apart from each other across a gap for the advantage of having a shape of a luminescent concentrator device helps to concentrate the solar energy towards the edges because the incoming photon which may be incident on the device in a variety of angles can be re-emitted in a direction that will internally reflect within the device rather than in a direction that will cause it to exit the device and because this configuration of glass plates advantageously acts to internally reflect and refract photons toward the edge surface.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al. (US 2017/0341346 A1) in view of Russo et al. (US 2003/0162037 A1).
In view of Claim 1, McDaniel et al. discloses a window (Figure 10, #1003) comprising:
the first (Figure 10, #1002, leftmost element) and second panes of glass (Figure 10, #1002, rightmost element & Paragraph 0071);
a luminescent concentrator (Figure 10, #1001 & Paragraph 0004) comprising:
a waveguide which includes said first pane of glass (Figure 10, #1002 sandwiches #1001 & Figure 1, #102 & Paragraph 0004);
a collection surface which directs radiation impingement upon it into said waveguide (Figure 1, #102 the outside perimeter surface);
an emission surface which is smaller than said collection surface and which extracts radiation from said waveguide, wherein said waveguide guides radiation to said emission surface and concentrates the radiation as it does so (Figure 1, #102 the bottom surface coupled to element 104 & Paragraph 0004);
a first light-absorbing species having a first absorption spectrum, wherein said first light-absorbing species is a fluorophore, and wherein said first absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs).
Applicant discloses that the preferred first light-absorbing species is CuInS2/ZnS QDs (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0049).
McDaniel et al. teaches a low-emissivity coating that can be applied to one or more glass surfaces to improve the heat transfer properties of the luminescent concentrator (Paragraph 0060). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply said low-emissivity coating to the second pane of glass (Figure 10, #1002, rightmost element), for the advantages of improving the heat transfer properties of the luminescent concentrator.
McDaniel et al. does not teach that this low-emissivity coating is a reflective layer having a transmission spectrum, wherein said transmission spectrum has a visible region with at least one transmission band therein, wherein said coating has a reflection band or an absorption band in a blue region of the spectrum and the coating increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Russo et al. teaches reflective layer that is a coating for a layer of glass (Figs. 1-3, #10/#12 or #16 & Paragraph 0043) that is reflective in at least one of an IR or near IR region of the electromagnetic spectrum wherein said reflective layer has a transmission band in a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum (Paragraph 0026) wherein said coating has a reflection band in a blue region of the spectrum (Paragraph 0035). Russo et al. teaches that the reflective layer comprises a transparent conducting oxide (Paragraph 0026 – tin oxide). Russo et al. teaches an object of the invention is to provide a solar control film or combination of films that can be easily applied by pyrolytic deposition during the glass making operation which yields an article which has an acceptable visible transmission, reflects or absorbs NIR, reflects the mid-IE (low-E)…and another object of the invention is to control the color of transmitted light independently from the color of reflected light by the addition of color additives in the NIR (Paragraph 0032). Russo et al. teaches that observed reflected color is unexpectedly controlled by the combination of absorption and reflection achieved by the NIR layer (absorption) and the reflection achieved by the low-emissivity layer (Paragraph 0035). Russo et al. teaches that this reflective layer advantageously gives an overall higher heat reflectance in the mid IR range (Paragraph 0040), reduces film haze (Paragraph 0045), and provides the ability to change the transmitted color of the coated glass, wherein transmitted color refers to the color perceived by a viewer on the opposite side of the coated glass from the source of light being viewed, while reflected color is the color perceived by a viewer on the same side as the source of light being viewed (Paragraph 0048). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace McDaniel et al. low-emissivity coating on the second pane of glass with the reflective layer that functions as a low-emissivity coating as taught by Russo et al. that has a transmission spectrum, wherein said transmission spectrum has a visible region with at least one transmission band therein, wherein said coating has a reflection band or an absorption band in a blue region of the spectrum for at least one of the advantages of having a low-e coating that is easily applied, has an overall higher heat reflectance in the mid IR range, reduces film haze, and/or provides the ability to change the transmitted color of the glass.
In regards to the limitation that, “wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible electromagnetic spectrum”. Modified McDaniel et al. would have the reflective layer as disclosed by Russo et al. on a surface of the second glass pane (See Annotated McDaniel et al. Figure 10, below), and as blue wavelengths over a portion of the visible region radiate outwards from the reflective coating and would strike the luminescent concentrator and increase the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over the portion of blue wavelengths of the visible region.
In regards to the limitation that “optical properties of the first light-absorbing species and the reflective layer are configured to collectively provide a color-neutral window”, Applicant discloses that the preferred first light-absorbing species is CuInS2/ZnS QDs (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0049). McDaniel et al. discloses the same material as Applicant, (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs). Applicant discloses that the reflective layer that can be configured to collectively provide a color-neutral window is a low-emissivity coating such as transparent conducting oxides or alternating dielectric and metal coatings (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0061). Russo et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to substitute the low-E coating of McDaniel et al. with TCO. The only difference in McDaniel et al. and Applicant’s claimed structure is the choice of material for the low-E coating to which Russo et al. discloses why it would be obvious to select a transparent conducting oxide. The combination of McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. would result in the “inherent characteristic” limitation of “optical properties of the first light-absorbing species and the reflective layer are configured to collectively provide a color neutral window” because it necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See MPEP 2112, III-IV.
Annotated McDaniel et al. Figure 10
PNG
media_image3.png
726
781
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 2, McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches a photovoltaic device, wherein said luminescent concentrator outputs concentrated radiation, and wherein said photovoltaic device converts said concentrated radiation into electricity (Figure 1, #104 & Paragraph 0004).
In view of Claim 3, McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches that the first light-absorbing species is a plurality of quantum dots (Figure 5 & Paragraph 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs).
In view of Claim 5, McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches that the fluorophore is a plurality of quantum dots comprising a material selected from CuInS2 (Paragraph 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs).
In view of Claim 9, McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches a third sheet of glass (Figure 10, #1002 middlemost element) and a medium disposed between said first and third sheets of glass and wherein said medium contacts said first and third sheet of glass across first and second non-reflective interfaces (Paragraph 0060) and contains said first light-absorbing species (Figure 10, #1001 is sandwiched between elements #1002 & Paragraph 0071).
In view of Claim 10, McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches that the fluorophore has a quantum yield of at least 50% (Paragraph 0059).
In view of Claim 11, McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches that the fluorophore has an emission peak between 400 nm and 1300 nm (Paragraph 0014).
In view of Claim 12, McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches the fluorophore has a self-absorption of less than 50% of its photoluminescence across the integrated spectrum over distances of at least 1 cm (Paragraph 0023-0024).
In view of Claim 13, McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. discloses that the fluorophore has a Stokes shift of greater than 100 meV (Paragraph 0040).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al. (US 2017/0341346 A1) in view of Russo et al. (US 2003/0162037 A1) in view of Jordaan “Low-emissivity (low-e) window coatings: how they work and when to use them”.
In view of Claim 19, McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Russo et al. is silent on the maximum transmission in the infrared region of less than 0.65.
Jordaan teaches standard low-e coatings have an emissivity rating of about 0.05 and this implies it reflects 95% of infrared that is incident on the coating (Page 6, Last Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have the maximum transmission of an IR region be less than 0.65 as Jordaan teaches that standard low-e coatings are reflecting much higher than this range (95%) for the advantage of reflecting infrared light. This limitation is also evidenced by Applicant’s specification, “A typical low-e coating may have a maximum transmission in the infrared region of less than 0.65.” (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0061).
Claims 6-8, 15, 17, 20-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McDaniel et al. (US 2017/0341346 A1) as evidenced by 405nm “Which color of light has the shortest wavelength” in view of Govaerts et al. (US 2009/0205701 A1).
In view of Claim 25, as best understood by the Examiner, McDaniel et al. discloses a window (Figure 10, #1003) comprising:
first (Figure 10, #1002 leftmost element) and second panes of glass (Figure 10, #1002 middlemost element & Paragraph 0071); alternatively, the first (Figure 10, #1002, leftmost element) and second panes of glass (Figure 10, #1002, rightmost element & Paragraph 0071);
a luminescent concentrator (Figure 10, #1001 & Paragraph 0004) comprising:
a waveguide which includes said first pane of glass (Figure 10, #1002 sandwiches #1001 & Figure 1, #102 & Paragraph 0004);
a collection surface which directs radiation impingement upon it into said waveguide (Figure 1, #102 the outside perimeter surface);
an emission surface which is smaller than said collection surface and which extracts radiation from said waveguide, wherein said waveguide guides radiation to said emission surface and concentrates the radiation as it does so (Figure 1, #102 the bottom surface coupled to element 104 & Paragraph 0004);
a first light-absorbing species having a first absorption spectrum, wherein said first light-absorbing species is a fluorophore, and wherein said first absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs).
Applicant discloses that the preferred first light-absorbing species is CuInS2/ZnS QDs (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0049).
McDaniel et al. is silent on the luminescent concentrator comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of (a) a second light-absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein, wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein said at least one element is disposed upon or incorporated into said second pane of glass.
Govaerts et al. teaches an element that is selected from a second-light absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 1-2, #110 & Paragraph 0029 & 0088 – Victoria Blue dye). Its noted Victoria Blue dye is a preferred element as a second light-absorbing species (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0009 & 0055). Govaerts et al. discloses that the at least one element comprises a Victoria Blue Dye (Figure 1-2, #110 & Paragraph 0029 & 0088). Applicant discloses that Victoria Blue dye is a preferred material for the second light-absorbing species (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0055-0058). Govaerts et al. discloses that there is a need in the art for luminescent solar collectors which have improved appearance while maintaining the desired level of edge emission (Paragraph 0012). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a second light-absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein, wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum as disclosed by Govaerts et al. in McDaniel et al. window such that said at least one element is disposed upon the second pane of glass as McDaniel et al. teaches that the medium is sandwiched between the first and second panes of glass and it would be obvious to include the second light-absorbing species of Govaerts et al. within that “sandwiched” structure.
In regards to the limitation that the “first light-absorbing species has a stronger absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said second light-absorbing species has stronger absorption in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum”, McDaniel et al. discloses a first light-absorbing species having a first absorption spectrum, wherein said first light-absorbing species is a fluorophore, and wherein said first absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs). Applicant discloses that the preferred first light-absorbing species is CuInS2/ZnS QDs (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0049). Govaerts et al. teaches an element that is selected from a second-light absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein (Figure 1-2, #110 & Paragraph 0029 & 0088 – Victoria Blue dye). Its noted Victoria Blue dye is a preferred element as a second light-absorbing species (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0009 & 0055). Thus modified McDaniel et al. teaches the same materials for a first and second light-absorbing species as Applicant and thus will display the properties when combined of having “first light-absorbing species has a stronger absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said second light-absorbing species has stronger absorption in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum”.
In regards to the limitation that the at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, Govaerts discloses that same element, accordingly, it will increase the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum.
In view of Claim 6, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 25. McDaniel et al. teaches that the waveguide comprises a medium, and wherein said medium comprises a material selected from the group consisting of EVA, PVB, thermoelectric polyurethane, PMMA, poly(lauryl methacrylate), acrylate polymer, urethanes, vinyl polymer, cellulose, ionomer, ionoplast, cyclic olefin polymer, epoxies and silicone (Claim 6).
In view of Claim 7, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. McDaniel et al. discloses that the medium is an extruded article (Paragraph 0063).
In view of Claim 8, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. McDaniel et al. teaches that the first light absorbing species is embedded in the polymeric medium (Figure 6 & Paragraph 0064), while Govaerts et al. was relied upon to teach why it was obvious to have the second light absorbing species embedded in polymeric medium with the first light absorbing species (Figure 2, #200 & Paragraph 0027) e.g., the second light-absorbing species of Govaerts et al. can be embedded in the same polymeric medium as an additional light absorbing species (Figure 2, #110 & #120 – Paragraph 0027). Its also important to note that polymeric layers 100/200 of Govaerts et al. are not necessarily different layers as they can comprise the same polymeric material and thus read on a “polymeric medium” (Paragraph 0032 – two layers comprising the same material can collectively be referred to as a “polymeric medium”).
In view of Claim 15, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 25. McDaniel et al. discloses a window unit comprises the luminescent concentrator (Figure 10). Govaerts et al. was relied upon to teach why it would be obvious to have at least one element disposed on a surface of said luminescent concentrator (Figure 1-2, #200 is adjacent to the surface of an LSC).
In view of Claim 17, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 25. Govaerts et al. was relied upon above to disclose said second light-absorbing species can be applied as a coating on said second sheet of glass and said coating has a reflection band or an absorption band in a blue region of the electromagnetic spectrum (Paragraph 0138).
In view of Claim 20, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 25. Govaerts et al. teaches that the second light absorbing species is blue (Paragraph 0138).
In view of Claim 21, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. McDaniel et al. teaches the first (Figure 10, #1002 leftmost element) and second panes of glass (Figure 10, #1002 rightmost element & Paragraph 0071) are spaced apart from each other (see gap between panes).
In view of Claim 22, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. McDaniel et al. teaches that there is a gap (see gap between panes Figure 10). It’s the Examiner’s position that absent a teaching of a vacuum (which there is none in McDaniel) that on planet earth, the atmosphere is filled with air and its either evident or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a gap would be filled with air.
In view of Claim 24, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. McDaniel et al. teaches that the second sheet of glass (Figure 10, #1002 middlemost element) is in direct contact with the waveguide (Figure 10, #1002 leftmost and middlemost element sandwich #1001 together).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDaniel et al. (US 2017/0341346 A1) in view of Govaerts et al. (US 2009/0205701 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2015/0194555 A1).
In view of Claim 21, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified McDaniel et al. does not disclose said first and second sheets of glass are spaced apart from each other across a gap.
Zhang et al. discloses a configuration where a first light absorbing species is sandwiched by first and third sheets of glass and a second light absorbing species is sandwiched by second and fourth sheets of glass (Figure 18, #111 & Paragraph 0125) such that the first and second sheets of glass are spaced apart from each other across a gap (Figure 18, #113). Zhang et al. teaches that the shape of the luminescent concentrator device helps to concentrate the solar energy towards the edges because the incoming photon which may be incident on the device in a variety of angles can be re-emitted in a direction that will internally reflect within the device rather than in a direction that will cause it to exit the device (Paragraph 0094) and that the glass plates also act to internally reflect and refract photons toward the edge surface (Paragraph 0096). Zhang et al. teaches that wavelength conversion layers (analogous to layers comprises first and second light absorbing species) are attached to at least glass plate (Figure 18, #111) such that once the photons are absorbed and re-emitted they are internally reflected and refracted within the coupled wavelength conversion layer (Paragraph 0108) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the glass sheet configuration of Zhang et al. in modified McDaniel et al. window such that first and second sheets of glass are spaced apart from each other across a gap for the advantage of having a shape of a luminescent concentrator device helps to concentrate the solar energy towards the edges because the incoming photon which may be incident on the device in a variety of angles can be re-emitted in a direction that will internally reflect within the device rather than in a direction that will cause it to exit the device and because this configuration of glass plates advantageously acts to internally reflect and refract photons toward the edge surface.
In view of Claim 23, McDaniel et al. and Govaerts et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified McDaniel et al. does not disclose the second sheet of glass is spaced apart from said waveguide, and wherein said waveguide includes said third sheet of glass.
Zhang et al. discloses a configuration where a first light absorbing species is sandwiched by first and third sheets of glass and a second light absorbing species is sandwiched by second and fourth sheets of glass (Figure 18, #111 & Paragraph 0125) such that the second sheet of glass is spaced apart from said waveguide, and wherein said waveguide includes said third sheet of glass (Figure 18, #113). Zhang et al. teaches that the shape of the luminescent concentrator device helps to concentrate the solar energy towards the edges because the incoming photon which may be incident on the device in a variety of angles can be re-emitted in a direction that will internally reflect within the device rather than in a direction that will cause it to exit the device (Paragraph 0094) and that the glass plates also act to internally reflect and refract photons toward the edge surface (Paragraph 0096). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the glass sheet configuration of Zhang et al. in modified McDaniel et al. window such that the second sheet of glass is spaced apart from said waveguide, and wherein said waveguide includes said third sheet of glass the advantage of having a shape of a luminescent concentrator device helps to concentrate the solar energy towards the edges because the incoming photon which may be incident on the device in a variety of angles can be re-emitted in a direction that will internally reflect within the device rather than in a direction that will cause it to exit the device and because this configuration of glass plates advantageously acts to internally reflect and refract photons toward the edge surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that McDaniel et al. in view of Ebisawa et al. do not disclose the optical properties of the first light-absorbing species and the reflective layer are configured to collectively provide a color-neutral window. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that McDaniel et al. discloses the same material as Applicant, (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs). Applicant discloses that the reflective layer that can be configured to collectively provide a color-neutral window is a low-emissivity coating such as transparent conducting oxides or alternating dielectric and metal coatings (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0061). Ebisawa et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to substitute the low-E coating of McDaniel et al. with TCO or alternating dielectric and metal coatings (Page 2, Right Column, Low-E coating, 3rd Paragraph). The only difference in McDaniel et al. and Applicant’s claimed structure is the choice of material for the low-E coating to which Ebisawa et al. discloses these are known material choices for low-E coatings that are advantageous in controlling near IR wavelengths and a small absorption over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The combination of McDaniel et al. and Ebisawa et al. would result in the “inherent characteristic” limitation of “optical properties of the first light-absorbing species and the reflective layer are configured to collectively provide a color neutral window” because it necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See MPEP 2112, III-IV. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that McDaniel et al. in view of Russo et al. do not disclose the optical properties of the first light-absorbing species and the reflective layer are configured to collectively provide a color-neutral window. The Examiner respectfully points that McDaniel et al. discloses the same material as Applicant, (Figure 5 - Paragraph 0041 & 0062 – CuInS2/Zn QDs). Applicant discloses that the reflective layer that can be configured to collectively provide a color-neutral window is a low-emissivity coating such as transparent conducting oxides or alternating dielectric and metal coatings (See PG Pub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0061). Russo et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to substitute the low-E coating of McDaniel et al. with TCO. The only difference in McDaniel et al. and Applicant’s claimed structure is the choice of material for the low-E coating to which Russo et al. discloses why it would be obvious to select a transparent conducting oxide. The combination of McDaniel et al. and Russo et al. would result in the “inherent characteristic” limitation of “optical properties of the first light-absorbing species and the reflective layer are configured to collectively provide a color neutral window” because it necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See MPEP 2112, III-IV. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify McDaniel et al. with Bhaumik to arrive at claim 25. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that McDaniel et al. does not explicitly disclose that the luminescent concentrator comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of a second light-absorbing species having a second absorption spectrum, wherein said second absorption spectrum has a visible region with at least one absorption band therein, and wherein said first light-absorbing species has strong absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum than a red region of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein said at least one element is disposed upon or incorporated into said second pane of glass but does disclose quantum dots can achieve a wide range of emission spectra with a plurality of fluorophores (Paragraph 0062).
Bhaumik et al. discloses that additional dyes may be added to a single layer sheet analogous to McDaniel (Figs. 2-3, multiple fluorophores present - Paragraph 0090-0091). Bhaumik et al. discloses that each type of photocell has a “sweet spot” or a range of wavelengths (light energy) which it converts most efficiently into electric energy and thus the photocell should be selected to that its sweet spot matches the light as much as possible emitted by the sheet of the luminescent solar concentrator (Paragraph 0096). Bhaumik et al. shows that the dyes can be selected to have absorption regions in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum (Fig. 4 & Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the first light absorbing species of McDaniel et al. with an additional “second” light absorbing species from the list of quantum dots as disclosed by McDaniel et al. because the substituted components and the quantum dots function is known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known quantum dot for another and the results of that substitution would have been predictable as this is known as a desirable configuration by one of ordinary skill in the art and be advantageous in matching the emitting light of a luminescent solar concentrator with the sweet spot of a corresponding solar cell. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
As pointed out above, McDaniel et al. discloses the same first light absorbing species as Applicant (CuInS2/Zn QDs), and additionally discloses the same exemplarily quantum dots as Applicant (Paragraph 0053 is the same quantum dots recited as Applicant’s instant disclosure in US PGPub – Paragraph 0042).
In regards to the limitation that “and wherein said first light-absorbing species has strong absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum than a red region of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein said at least one element is disposed upon or incorporated into said second pane of glass”, modified McDaniel et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “said first light-absorbing species has strong absorption in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum than a red region of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and wherein said at least one element increases the light absorption of the luminescent concentrator over at least a portion of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum, wherein said at least one element is disposed upon or incorporated into said second pane of glass”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Bhaumik et al. discloses that additional dyes may be added to a single layer sheet analogous to McDaniel (Figs. 2-3, multiple fluorophores present - Paragraph 0090-0091). Bhaumik et al. discloses that each type of photocell has a “sweet spot” or a range of wavelengths (light energy) which it converts most efficiently into electric energy and thus the photocell should be selected to that its sweet spot matches the light as much as possible emitted by the sheet of the luminescent solar concentrator (Paragraph 0096). Bhaumik et al. shows that the dyes can be selected to have absorption regions in the red region of the spectrum than the blue region of the spectrum (Fig. 4 & Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine the first light absorbing species of McDaniel et al. with an additional “second” light absorbing species from the list of quantum dots as disclosed by McDaniel et al. because the substituted components and the quantum dots function is known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known quantum dot for another and the results of that substitution would have been predictable as this is known as a desirable configuration by one of ordinary skill in the art and be advantageous in matching the emitting light of a luminescent solar concentrator with the sweet spot of a corresponding solar cell. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
As pointed out above, McDaniel et al. discloses the same first light absorbing species as Applicant (CuInS2/Zn QDs), and additionally discloses the same exemplarily quantum dots as Applicant (Paragraph 0053 is the same quantum dots recited as Applicant’s instant disclosure in US PGPub – Paragraph 0042). Thus McDaniel et al. discloses that the first light-absorbing species has a stronger region in a blue region of a visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum than a red region of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Additionally, this is shown in Figure 4 of McDaniel.
Alternatively, Bhaumik et al. discloses that additional dyes may be added to a single layer sheet analogous to McDaniel (Figs. 2-3, multiple fluorophores present - Paragraph 0090-0091). Bhaumik et al. discloses examples where the fluorophores have a stronger absorption in the red region than in the blue region of the electromagnetic spectrum (Fig. 4, the dyes are not transmitting as much in the red region ~600-650 nm than in the blue region ~420-490 nm & See Annotated 405nm Visible Spectrum, below). Bhaumik et al. discloses that each type of photocell has a “sweet spot” or a range of wavelengths (light energy) which it converts most efficiently into electric energy and thus the photocell should be selected to that its sweet spot matches the light as much as possible emitted by the sheet of the luminescent solar concentrator (Paragraph 0096). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate an additional fluorophore of Bhaumik et al. into McDaniel et al. LSC for the advantage of matching the “sweet spot” of the solar cell with as much light as possible emitted by the sheet of the luminescent solar concentrator.
Annotated 405nm Visible Spectrum
PNG
media_image2.png
553
1061
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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 at 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 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726