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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/29/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that groups I and II would not require a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because this restriction is made under 371 which requires that in order to break unity of invention a special technical feature must be shown, which was detailed in the office action dated 9/29/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 10/29/2025. Claims 7-9 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hibino et al (US PGPUB No. 2013/0143473), hereinafter referred to as Hibino.
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Hibino discloses A method for recycling a solar panel [Hibino, pages 1-2, pp 0014] comprising:
ascertaining a feature amount of the solar panel [Hibino, page 1, pp 0013 and page 7, pp 0102] including a thickness of a cover glass [Hibino, page 1, pp 0013] and a hardness of the cover glass [Hibino, 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] to separate the cover glass covering a surface of the solar panel from the solar panel [Hibino, page 1, pp 0013].
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Hibino further discloses the method for recycling a solar panel according to claim1, 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 (Currently Amended), Hibino further discloses the method for recycling a solar panel according to claim1, 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 and the collision energy exists].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hibino et al (US PGPUB No. 2013/0143473) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, respectively, and in further view of Ishibashi et al (US PGPUB No. 2006/0099888), hereinafter referred to as Hibino and Ishibashi, respectively.
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Hibino further discloses the method for recycling a solar panel according to claim 1, wherein: the processing media is multiple particles [Hibino, page 12, pp 0152 particles are made of an aluminum alloy WA]; and separation of the cover glass from the solar panel comprises: causing the processing media to collide with the solar panel to form a crack in the cover glass [Hibino, page 12, pp 0152]; further causing the processing media to collide with the solar panel to grow the crack [Hibino, page 13, 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 where particles from the workpiece were suctioned off with the blast media].
Hibino 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 Hibino 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 Hibino et al (US PGPUB No. 2013/0143473) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, respectively, 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 Hibino, Ishibashi, and Wikipedia, respectively.
Regarding claims 5 (Original) and 6 (Original), Hibino 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).
Hibino further teaches in one example that the media may be WA #600 (which is an alumina alloy) [Hibino, page 12, pp 0152].
Ishibashi teaches 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.
Conclusion
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