DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment / Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 4/29/2026. Claims 7-9 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0276995) in view of Hibino et al (US PGPUB No. 2013/0143473), hereinafter referred to as Sato and Hibino, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Sato et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0276995) discloses a method for processing a solar panel [Sato, page 1, pp 0002] comprising a laminate in which a cover glass is layered on solar cell [Sato, page 1, pp 0002 and page 2, pp’s 0031-0033, teaching a cover glass for a solar cell], the method comprising:
ascertaining a feature amount of the solar panel including a thickness of the cover glass [Sato, page 5, pp’s 0078-0079] and a hardness of the cover glass [Sato, page 3, pp 0038, sandblast media having a higher hardness that that of the glass sheet];
setting a processing condition based on the feature amount of the solar panel [Sato, page 5, pp’s 0079-0085]; and
based on the processing condition, applying an impact force to the solar panel by means of processing media to separate the cover glass covering a surface of the solar panel from the solar panel [Sato, page 5, pp’s 0079-0085 and page 3, pp’s 0042-0044, teaching the conditions and that material is blasted],
wherein the separating of the cover glass comprises: causing the processing media to collide with the solar panel to form a crack in the cover glass [Sato, page 3, pp 0035]; further causing the processing media to collide with the solar panel to grow the crack [Sato, page 3, pp 0035].
Sato may not explicitly disclose a method for recycling a solar panel comprising the laminate in which the cover glass is layered on a power generating layer; and wherein the separating of the cover glass comprises causing the processing media to collide with the solar panel to remove the cover glass from the solar panel in particulate form.
Hibino et al (US PGUPUB No. 2013/0143473) teaches a method for recycling a solar panel [Habino, pages 1-2, pp 0014] comprising a laminate comprising a power generating layer [Habino, page 4, pp 0050, comprising a base substrate including glass a thin-layer, and power layer(s)], the method comprising:
ascertaining a feature amount of the solar panel [Hibino, page 1, pp 0013 and page 7, pp 0102] including a thickness [Hibino, page 1, pp 0013] and a hardness [Habino, page 7, pp 0102];
setting a processing condition based on the feature amount of the solar panel [Hibino, page 7, pp 0102, the hardness sets the treating force]; and
based on the processing condition, applying an impact force to the solar panel by means of processing media [Hibino, page 7, pp 0102],
wherein the separating of the cover glass comprises: causing the processing media to collide with the solar panel [Hibino, page 12, pp 0152]; and further causing the processing media to collide with the solar panel to remove the cover glass from the solar panel in particulate form [Hibino, page 13, pp 0152-0153, particles are suctioned off with the blast media].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the antiglare cover class of Sato with the solar cell power layer of Hibino because the glass sheet of Sato reduces sparkling [Sato, page 2, pp 0026] which reduces specular reflection (glare) [Sato, page 1, pp’s 0010-0011, summarized] which is useful to solar cells in that this helps users install the solar cells without being blinded by the glare and reduces eye strain on those who would look at the solar cells.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Sato to include the causing the processing media to remove the particulate form of the solar panel as taught by Hibino because this configuration prevents the abrasive particles from damaging the area outside of the treatment area [Hibino, page 13, pp 0153, summarized].
Regarding claim 3 (Previously Presented), Sato as modified further discloses the method for recycling a solar panel according to claim 1, comprising separating broken pieces of the cover glass from particles including the processing media that was used for separation of the cover glass and broken pieces of the cover glass that was separated [Hibino, page 3, pp 0034, air is blasted and separates particles from the dust or work from the media that was used].
Regarding claim 4 (Previously Presented), Sato as modified further discloses the method for recycling a solar panel according to claim 1, wherein the processing condition includes an energy when the processing media collides with the solar panel [Sato, page 2, pp 0041 and page 5, pp’s 0079-0086, teaching the media have a speed or velocity, and the media has a mass, and per the formula for KE =1/2 mv^2, the particles have a mass and velocity and therefore was an energy when Collison occurs].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0276995) in view of Hibino et al (US PGPUB No. 2013/0143473) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Ishibashi et al (US PGPUB No. 2006/0099888), hereinafter referred to as Sato, Hibino and Ishibashi, respectively.
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Sato as modified further discloses the method for recycling a solar panel according to claim 1, however Sato as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein: the processing media is multiple particles with a diameter of 0.6 to 3.0 mm.
Ishibashi teaches a method of using blast media comprising: applying an impact force to a workpiece by means of processing media to cut the workpiece [Ishibashi, page 7, pp’s 0098-0099, alumina (an aluminum alloy) is used to cut the workpiece and page 7, pp 0088 teaching the workpiece can be glass which is similar to the workpiece claimed], wherein: the processing media is multiple particles with a diameter of 0.6 to 3.0 mm [Ishibashi, page 7, pp 0098 teaching the average diameter of the particles is 0.8mm which overlaps the claimed invention].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the particle size of processing media of Sato as modified to the particle size of Ishibashi to have an average diameter of 0.8mm because this gave the result of preventing satin-finished uneven portions on the workpiece, while maintaining a slide of the abrasive such that the surface can be cut in parallel [Ishibashi, page 7, pp 0099, summarized].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0276995) in view of Hibino et al (US PGPUB No. 2013/0143473) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Ishibashi et al (US PGPUB No. 2006/0099888), as evidenced by Vickers Hardness table for materials Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardnesses_of_the_elements_%28data_page%29), hereinafter referred to as Sato, Hibino, Ishibashi, and Wikipedia, respectively.
Regarding claims 5 (Original) and 6 (Original), Sato as modified discloses the method for recycling a solar panel according to claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: a Vickers hardness of the processing media is 350 to 550 HV (clm 5) or 60 to 150 HV (clm 6); and the energy when colliding with the solar panel is 1.0 x 10-3 to 5.3 x 10-1 J (clm 5) or 9.0 x 10-4 to 5.0 x 10-1 J (clm 6).
Sato as modified further teaches in one example that the media may be WA #600 (which is an alumina alloy) [Hibino, page 12, pp 0152].
Ishibashi teaches a method of using blast media comprising: applying an impact force to a workpiece by means of processing media to cut the workpiece [Ishibashi, page 7, pp’s 0098-0099, alumina (an aluminum alloy) is used to cut the workpiece and page 7, pp 0088 teaching the workpiece can be glass which is similar to the workpiece claimed], wherein: the processing media is chosen for properties such as material and size [Ishibashi, page 4, pp 0059 – page 5, pp 0062, teaching that the abrasive grains material and abrasive size can be adjusted. Further per table 1, the list of materials includes steel, aluminum, copper, and the various alloys]. As evidenced by Wikipedia the Vickers hardness for aluminum is 160-350 HV, cooper is 343-369 HV [Wikipedia, table, Aluminum and Copper Vickers Hardness properties], wherein the processing condition includes an energy when the processing media collides with the solar panel [Hibino, page 11, pp 0138, teaching that there is a blast pressure, size or area of the work, and the distance between the unit to treat and work, all giving the parts required for calculating the kinetic energy, where KE = 1/2 * mass * velocity ^2 = Force * distance * area. Further per pages 7-8, pp 0102, it is taught that the media has a velocity and further since the media has substance also has mass. Therefore, the kinetic energy of the blast media can be calculated] (from clm 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust or changed the material of blast media of Hibino as taught Ishibashi because this allows the user to dictate what properties of the finish of the workpiece [Ishibashi, page 4, pp 0061 – page 5, pp 0062, summarized].
Regarding the Vickers hardness of the material being with the ranges of 350 to 550 HV (clm 5) or 60 to 150 HV (clm 6), since the material is chosen by the user as taught by Ishibashi, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be able to choose the material to cover the ranges as claimed. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the blast media for the Vickers Hardness property would result is a difference in function of the device of Hibino as modified by Ishibashi. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the blast media to meet a Vickers Hardness requirement, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed Vickers Hardness requirements. Lastly applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the Vickers Hardness “for example” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e,g. claim 5 vs claim 6, specification pp [0041]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that is produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blast media of Hibino as modified by Ishibashi to have a Vickers Hardness between 350 to 550 HV (clm 5) or 60 to 150 HV (clm 6) as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding the collision energy of the ranges 1.0 x 10-3 to 5.3 x 10-1 J (clm 5) or 9.0 x 10-4 to 5.0 x 10-1 J (clm 6), since the material, blast pressure of the media, area of work, and the distance between the unit to perform the work to the work, is chosen by the user as taught by Ishibashi, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be able to choose the blast pressure of the media, area of work, and the distance between the unit to perform the work to the work to cover the ranges as claimed. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the material of the blast media, the blast pressure of the media, area of work, and the distance between the unit to perform the work to the work, would result is a difference in function of the device of Hibino as modified by Ishibashi. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the material of the blast media, the blast pressure of the media, area of work, and the distance between the unit to perform the work to the work, requirements, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed energy requirements. Lastly applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the collision energy requirement is “for example” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e,g. claim 5 vs claim 6, specification pp [0041]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that is produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the blast media, the blast pressure of the media, area of work, and the distance between the unit to perform the work to the work of Hibino as modified by Ishibashi to have a collision energy between 350 to 550 HV (clm 5) or 60 to 150 HV (clm 6) as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued on page that Hibino does not teach the crack forming in the claimed manner with the laminate comprising a cover glass and the power generating layer. Respectfully the Office disagrees because the new grounds of rejection relies upon the teaching of Sato et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0276995) to teach the cracking of the cover glass, when combined with a power layer in a laminated workpiece. Where Hibino is relied upon to teach the power layer, and upon other structures that the applicant has not explicitly argued. Therefore the arguments are a moot point.
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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights