DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of September 13, 2024 is considered herein.
Claims 1, 13-15, 21, 29, 30 and 36 have been amended.
Claims 2, 7, 10, 16-19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31 and 33-35 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11-15, 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32 and 36 are pending and have been considered on the merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The final limitation of claim 1 refers to “the least one series of solar cells”, but it seems the applicant is intending to refer to “the at least one series of solar cells”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RIBBERINK (WO2019/092458A1, wherein US PG PUB 2020/0332593A1 is cited herein, as its equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, RIBBERINK teaches a window unit for a building or structure (“multifunctional glazing unit”, paragraph [0084]), the window unit (“multifunctional glazing unit”) being arranged for generating electricity (paragraph [0086]) and comprising:
a panel (104, “glazing”) having an area that is transparent for at least a portion of visible light and having a light receiving surface (light receiving surface, 105) for receiving light from a light incident direction; and
at least one series of solar cells (143, series of bi-facial solar cells, paragraph [0106]), each solar cell being a bifacial solar cell (paragraph [0106]) and having opposite first and second surfaces each having an area in which light can be absorbed to generate electricity (bi-facial indicating both sides can absorb light to generate light), the solar cells being positioned such that in use the first surfaces are oriented to receive light from the light incident direction and the second surfaces receive light from an opposite direction (paragraph [0084], light incident side 140, first surface and interior side 141, second surface),
where the least one series of solar cells (143, a first interpretation is either section or both, or a second interpretation is the series being one outermost vertical string (of the 3 of sections 143)) are provided in the form of a narrow strip (1st interpretation of “the least one series of solar cell” - wherein the section of all 3 vertical strings of each section 143 is more long than wide, indicative of a narrow strip or 2nd interpretation – wherein string of cells along the outermost conductor is narrow in that it is not wide, and much smaller in width than length. Moreover, the term “narrow” is a relative term, wherein both interpretations show strips, series and strings of solar cells which are narrow relative to the panel itself.) that only extends along, and in the proximity of, an edge region of the panel (in both interpretations the strips extend parallel to the edge region (“only extends along”) and have nearness to the edge region (“in the proximity of”). To be clear, the claim as written does not require all the cells to have nearness or proximity and these terms also do not require adjacency or touching the edge (the edge region is not the edge but incorporating other area around said edge). The claim as written also does not require all the cells present in the window unit to be within the series.) such that a central area of the panel (central portion 150) corresponds to an area in which no solar cells are positioned (see figure 2) and which is at least largely transmissive for light (150 is taught to be transparent in paragraph [0106] reading on “at least largely transmissive”).
Regarding claim 3, RIBBERINK teaches the first surfaces (140) are oriented towards the light receiving surface of the panel (105, light receiving surface) (orientation shown in figures 1 and 2) and wherein the window unit is arranged such that the second surfaces of the solar cells receive light from an interior of the building or structure (necessary based on the description in paragraph [0084] detailing the second sheet disposed to the building interior).
Regarding claim 4, RIBBERINK teaches at least one light reflective surface (131/231/331/431, “light reflecting surface” within or on slats, 111, shown in figure 1) facing towards the panel (104) or forming an angle of 90 degrees or less with the light receiving surface of the panel (105), the at least one light reflective surface (131) being spaced apart from both the panel (104) and the at least one series of solar cells (107) (wherein the claimed relationships are shown in figure 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, RIBBERINK teaches the window unit is arranged such that, in use, a portion of light incident on the receiving surface (entering through the light receiving surface, paragraph [0084]) transmits through the panel (104) towards the at least one light reflective surface (131) and is then reflected by the at least one light reflective surface (131) towards the second surfaces (back or interior side of the bifacial cell) of the at least one of the solar cells where the light can be absorbed to generate electricity (paragraphs [0054] and [0141]).
Regarding claim 8, RIBBERINK teaches the at least one series of solar cells (107) and the at least one light reflective surface (131/111) are positioned such that the second surfaces of solar cells are also exposed to incident light without prior reflection by a component of the window unit (Paragraph [0145] makes it clear the light will pass through the entirety of the cells (both front/first and back/second sides) upon exposure to the incident light. Moreover, this citation makes clear the manipulation of the angle of the reflective surface is possible allowing for exposure as claimed.).
Regarding claim 9, RIBBERINK teaches the at least one light reflective surface (131/111) is positioned such that a gap (112, “cavity”) is defined between the second surfaces of the solar cells (second surface, 141) and the at least one light reflective surface (131/111).
Regarding claim 11, RIBBERINK teaches plurality of series of solar cells (both 143) each extending along a respective edge of the panel (discussed in paragraph [0026] and shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, RIBBERINK teaches the panel is a first panel (104) and the window unit comprises a second panel (108) having an area that is transparent for at least a portion of visible light (taught to be glass in paragraph [0103] and functioning as a window, indicative of transparency for light) and wherein the at least one series of solar cells (107/143) is positioned between the first (104) and the second panel (108) (see figure 1 and discussed in paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claim 13, RIBBERINK teaches the first surface (140) of each solar cell (107) is directly or indirectly bonded to the first panel (104) (See figure 1 and the orientation of the pieces relative to each other.) and the second surface (141) of each solar cell (107) is directly or indirectly bonded to the second panel (108) whereby each solar cell is sandwiched between the first and second panels (shown in figure 1 with the cells between the two panels) (To be clear the term “bonded” does not impart any structural limitation and is interpreted herein to infer contact or attachment, but not an attachment formed by a bond or structural component.).
Regarding claim 14, RIBBERINK teaches at least one series of further solar cells (either of the sets of cells 143 of figure 2) that is positioned at at least one edge surface of the panel (periphery of 104), or at least one of the first and second panels (104/108) (see figure 2 wherein the cells are shown toward the edge of the device at the top and bottom), and oriented substantially perpendicular to the light receiving surface (105) facing towards an edge surface of the panel (periphery of 104) or at least one of the first and the second panels (104/108) (extension of the strings or thickness at the edges or ends of the strings is substantially perpendicular to the vertical plane of the light receiving surface of figure 1), whereby the at least one series of further solar cells (143) is positioned to received light that travelled through the edge surface of the panel (periphery of the panel 104) or at least one of the first and second panels (104/108) (as light travels through the panel to reach the PV cells shown toward the edge or periphery of figure 2, light will traverse the panel and the edge surface of said panel).
Regarding claim 15, RIBBERINK teaches at least one reflective edge element (131/111) that is positioned at at least one edge surface of the panel (periphery of 104), or at least one of the first and second panels (104/108), and oriented substantially perpendicular to the light receiving surface (105) facing towards an edge surface of the panel (periphery of 104), or at least one of the first and the second panels (104/108) (paragraphs [0103] and [0143] teach the manipulation of the reflective edge elements at the periphery of the device to be any angle of incidence reasonably between 0-180 degrees, as shown in figure 1 the reflective surfaces toward the bottom or top of the device is perpendicular to the thickness of the cells), whereby the at least one series of further solar cells is positioned to reflect light that travelled through the edge surface of the panel (periphery of 104) or at least one of the first and second panel (104/108) back, into the panel, or at least one of the first and second panels thereby increasing likelihood that the light will be absorbed by one or more of the solar cells (paragraph [0054]).
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.
Claim(s) 20, 21, 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RIBBERINK, in view of SAKURAI et al (WO 2019/070007A1, wherein US PG PUB 2020/0238665A1 is cited herein as the English equivalent).
Regarding claim 20, RIBBERINK discloses glass panels of the window unit and the use of sealing via a spacer to prevent escape of interior fluid in paragraph [0073], but fails to disclose a tapered extension that is attached, or forms a portion of, the panel of the window unit.
SAKURAI et al teaches a stack of glass sheets with a component therebetween, just as in RIBBERINK, as shown in figure 1. SAKURAI et al teaches the use of tapered edges of the glass panels, engagement with a sealing material and the manipulation of the shapes of the end edges of panels so as to address needs within the use of the panel in terms of appearance, bonding strength, safety, among other considerations in paragraphs [0145] and [0146]. Moreover, this citation teaches the use of tapered edges allows for continuous sealing or engagement with the sealing material and the panel.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a tapered end edge of the panel of RIBBERINK, as shown in SAKURAI et al, so as to ensure sealing and connectivity between the panels and sealing material. Moreover, the selection of an alternative shape, such as tapering, within the panel to allow for interfacing with the spacer to form the same sealed device in RIBBERINK, as modified by SAKURAI et al, would have been obvious to do so as SAKURAI et al teaches the manipulation of the shaping for sealing, bond strength, appearance and safety within the device, all matters of engineering choice. The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify shaping of the panel of RIBBERINK to include a tapered shape, as taught by SAKURAI et al, as an ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to optimize the bond strength, consistent seal contact, appearance and safety within the device.
Regarding claim 21, SAKURAI et al teaches the use of tapering both adjacent panels (rendering first and second side portions) in paragraph [0146]. This structure would necessarily and obviously result in the first and second side portions that define an angle between them and define the tapered shape. Moreover, RIBBERINK teaches the window unit comprises first and second series of solar cells (143) each being bifacial (paragraph [0141]) and having first and opposite second surfaces for receiving light and generating electricity (paragraphs [0054] and [0141]).
Regarding claim 23, SAKURAI et al teaches side portions as addressed in paragraph [0146] and detailed in the rejection of claim 21. The attachment of solar cells to the side portions of the tapered extension is present in RIBBERINK, in view of SAKURAI et al, via the attachment of the solar cells to the panels (the panel comprises the tapered extension, RIBBERINK teaches the attachment of cells to the panel, creating indirect attachment between the cells and the tapered extension). The first surface of the cells of RIBBERINK (140) and are positioned to receive light that travelled through edges of the one or more panels (periphery of 104) (overlap between the cell layer 107 and periphery of 104 would render this traversal of light) whereby the window unit is arranged such that the first surfaces of the solar cells (140) receive light either form the incident light direction (through the front, as 104 allows the passage of light).
Regarding claim 29, SAKURAI et al teaches the panel surfaces to have a tapered extension at one end (paragraph [0146]). RIBBERINK teaches solar cells (140) are bonded to panel surfaces (104 at 141). The bonding of the cells to the tapered extension is shown in two interpretations. Firstly, the bonding of the cells to the panel shown in figure 1 of RIBBERINK and the presence of the tapered extension as part of the panel, would cause the cells to be indirectly bonded, fulfilling the claims recitation that the “cells are bonded to panel surfaces of the tapered extension”. Moreover, the application of cells to the surface of the tapered extension would be obvious as the installation of cells on any surface which can be exposed to light (as in that of all surfaces of panel 104 as shown to be exposed in figure 1). By installing cells onto the tapered surfaces themselves, the panel surfaces of the tapered extension would be bonded to the solar cells themselves. In response to the final limitation, the installation of the cells onto the surfaces panel or surface of the tapered extension of the panel would obviously remove an airgap between the solar cells and the panel surfaces or between the solar cells and the tapered extension.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RIBBERINK, in view of HAMMOND et al (US PG PUB 2017/0317305).
Regarding claim 26, while all solar cells have some inherent flexibility, RIBBERINK fails to teach the at least one series of solar cells comprises flexible and/or bendable solar cells.
HAMMOND et al teaches a string of solar cells sandwiched between two glass panels, just as in RIBBERINK, as disclosed in the abstract. HAMMOND et al further teaches the use of flexible solar cells for ease of transportation and installation into window and other applications in paragraph [0015].
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to utilize flexible solar cell strings, as in HAMMOND et al, for the solar cell strings of RIBBERINK to allow for ease of application or installation of the cells to the glass material of RIBBERINK.
Claim(s) 30, 32 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RIBBERINK, in view of TRAVERSE et al (“Emergence of highly transparent photovoltaics for distributed applications”, as supplied by the applicant with the IDS of November 21, 2022).
Regarding claim 30, while RIBBERINK shows the presence of transmissive areas within the panel, RIBBERINK is silent to wherein the panel or at least one of the first and second panels comprises further photovoltaic material and wherein the further photovoltaic material is positioned in, at, or in the proximity of a surface of the panel, or at least one of the first and second panels, the further photovoltaic material being distributed along the surface of the panel or at least one of the panels and between transmissive areas that are void of the further photovoltaic material, the further photovoltaic material being structured such that features of the further photovoltaic material are sufficiently narrow to be at least largely invisible to the naked eye.
TRAVERSE et al teaches the use of a photovoltaic material for use in windows (abstract), just as in RIBBERINK. TRAVERSE et al further teaches the application of see-through, invisible photovoltaics as a coating for windows to help offset energy needs of the building (Outlook section) without sacrificing aesthetic appeal.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to coat the exterior of the panel of RIBBERINK with the transparent, invisible photovoltaics of TRAVERSE et al so as to help offset energy needs of the building without foregoing aesthetics and increase the power generation capabilities of the window of RIBBERINK by providing more power generation in the same area. Coating the external surface of the panel with transparent, invisible photovoltaics of TRAVERSE et al reads on the further photovoltaic material of the instant application as it places the further photovoltaic material on the surface of the panel, distributed along the surface thereof, in open areas and to be largely invisible to the naked eye (transparent and invisible).
Regarding claim 32, modified RIBBERINK teaches the further photovoltaic material forms a pattern (the coating of the surface of the panel with the further photovoltaic material is interpreted as a full coverage pattern.).
Regarding claim 36, RIBBERINK teaches a window unit for a building or structure (“multifunctional glazing unit”, paragraph [0084]), the window unit (“multifunctional glazing unit”) being arranged for generating electricity (paragraph [0086]) and comprising:
a panel (104, “glazing material”, paragraph [0071]) having an area that is transparent for at least a portion of visible light (glass is necessarily and obviously transparent to visible light); and
at least one series of solar cells (143, a first interpretation is either section or both, or a second interpretation is the series being one outermost vertical string (of the 3 of sections 143)) provided in the form of a narrow strip (1st interpretation of “the least one series of solar cell” - wherein the section of all 3 vertical strings of each section 143 is more long than wide, indicative of a narrow strip or 2nd interpretation – wherein string of cells along the outermost conductor is narrow in that it is not wide, and much smaller in width than length. Moreover, the term “narrow” is a relative term, wherein both interpretations show strips, series and strings of solar cells which are narrow relative to the panel itself.) that only extends along, and in the proximity of, an edge region of the panel (in both interpretations the strips extend only parallel to the edge region (“only extends along”, not perpendicular to the edges) and have nearness to the edge region (“in the proximity of”). To be clear, the claim as written does not require all the cells to have nearness or proximity and these terms also do not require adjacency or touching the edge (the edge region is not the edge but incorporating other area around said edge). The claim as written also does not require all the cells present in the window unit to be within the series.) such that a central area of the panel (central portion 150) corresponds to an area in which no solar cells are positioned (see figure 2) and which is at least largely transmissive for light (150 is taught to be transparent in paragraph [0106] reading on “at least largely transmissive”).
RIBBERINK is silent to wherein the panel comprises further photovoltaic material positioned in, at, or in the proximity of panel material, the further photovoltaic material being distributed over a surface of the panel and between transmissive areas that are void of the further photovoltaic material such that features of the further photovoltaic material are sufficiently narrow to be at least largely invisible to the naked eye.
TRAVERSE et al teaches the use of a photovoltaic material for use in windows (abstract), just as in RIBBERINK. TRAVERSE et al further teaches the application of see-through, invisible photovoltaics as a coating for windows to help offset energy needs of the building (Outlook section) without sacrificing aesthetic appeal.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to coat the exterior of the panel of RIBBERINK with the transparent, invisible photovoltaics of TRAVERSE et al so as to help offset energy needs of the building without foregoing aesthetics and increase the power generation capabilities of the window of RIBBERINK by providing more power generation in the same area. Coating the external surface of the panel with transparent, invisible photovoltaics of TRAVERSE et al reads on the further photovoltaic material of the instant application as it places the further photovoltaic material on the surface of the panel, distributed along the surface thereof, in open areas and to be largely invisible to the naked eye (transparent and invisible).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 13, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Starting on page 9 of the remarks, the applicant argues RIBBERINK does not teach the newly added limitation. Specifically, the applicant argues RIBBERINK does not teach or suggest, at least, that the solar cells are provided as strips and only extend along an edge of the panel such that no solar cells are provided in the central area.
The examiner disagrees, both in the conclusion of the applicant and their paraphrasing of the metes and bounds of the claim. The limitations addressed in the argument are broken down below.
“The solar cells are provided as strips” – The claim requires at “least one series of cells are provided as strips”, not all the cells. Further, RUBBERINK discloses strings or strips as shown in the figure. It is unclear what is different about the vertical strings of cells connected along connector 145 which the examiner reads as a strip, compared to the strip of the instant claim.
The cells “only extend along an edge of the panel such that no solar cells are provided in the central area” – The claim as written is directed not to “an edge of the panel” but “an edge region of the panel”, a broader and less specific area. Moreover, extending along the edge region, as is required by the claim is taught by the vertical strings of RUBBERINK extending in a vertical direction parallel or along the length of the edge region. Figure 2 of RUBBERINK also clearly shows a central region of the panel 150 which does not have solar cells reading on the no cells being within the central area.
For these reasons, the independent claims featuring this limitation as written are taught by RUBBERINK (or RUBBERINK and TRAVERSE).
The applicant further argues at the top of page 10, that RUBBERINK actively teaches away from the claimed arrangement.
The examiner is unclear how RUBBERINK teaches away and the argument provides no evidence as such. While it the structure of the instant invention in figure 1 does appear different than that of figure 2 of RUBBERINK, the examiner disagrees that the claim as currently written is limited to the very strict structure of figure 1. If the applicant’s argument is that the claim is restricted to only the structure of figure 1 and RUBBERINK teaches a different structure, the examiner disagrees the metes and bounds of the claim only include figure 1 and indicates, as described above and herein, that RUBBERINK also features a structure which reads on the broader language of the claim. For example, the claim does not require the entirety of the cells to be present adjacent or in contact with the edges or provide other limiting language, but instead refers to at least one series of cells being in proximity with an edge region. For at least these reasons, RUBBERINK is interpreted as reading on the newly added limitation.
The remainder of the applicant’s arguments refer to the other references applied failing to address the newly added limitation.
The examiner disagrees for the reasons articulated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VASILIEV et al (US PG PUB 2016/0204297) discloses solar cells oriented as in figure 1, reading on the instant invention.
BENSON et al (US Patent 5,384,653) discloses a string of cells near the edge region in a window unit, reading on the instant invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 12/19/2024