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 .
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.
Claim 12 is 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. Specifically, claim 12 recites “light passing through the module does not produce minima and maxima of light intensities,” however, the manner in which light passes through a module without producing minimum or maximum light intensity is unclear.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2014/0332073) in view of Haghanifar et al. ("Flexible nanograss with highest combination of transparency and haze for optoelectronic plastic substrates").
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an
incident light into electrical energy (abstract), the photovoltaic module comprising plural solar cells configured to transform a first part of the incident light into the electrical energy (12 in Fig. 2); a first sheet that is transparent to incident light (14 in Fig. 2); a second sheet that is transparent to the incident light (11 in Fig. 2), wherein the plurality solar cells are opaque to the incident light ([0022] L10-11 discloses an opaque region A formed by sheltering of the solar chip) and are sandwiched between the first sheet and the second sheet (12 and 13 in relation to 11 and 14).
Chen does not explicitly disclose each of the first and second sheets has a high transparency regarding the incident light and also a high scattering of the incident light, wherein the high transparency is defined as allowing more than 85% light transmission of the incident light, wherein the high scattering is defined as scattering more than 40% of a transmitted light.
Haghanifar discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy (abstract L2 discloses solar cells) and further discloses optoelectronic applications such as solar cells and light emitting-diodes would benefit from substrates with both high transparency and high haze, which increase how much light scatters into or out of the underlying photoactive layers (abstract L2-4). Haghanifar further discloses while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the transparent cover plate (14) and the transparent substrate (11) of Chen with the PET substrates of Haghanifar, because as taught by Haghanifar, while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
Modified Chen discloses the high transparency is defined as allowing more than 85% light transmission of the incident light, and wherein the high scattering is defined as scattering more than 40% of a transmitted light (Haghanifar - page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
Modified Chen discloses a second part of the incident light, which passes through the photovoltaic module, has a uniform light intensity distribution (Chen – [0022]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a second part of the incident light, which passes through the photovoltaic module, has a uniform light intensity distribution due to the high scattering,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the plural solar cells are made of silicon (Chen – [0023]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses an encapsulating material distributed between the first and second sheets (Chen – 13, 15 in Fig. 2).
With regard to the limitation “to hold the first and second sheets together,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 8, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the encapsulating material fully encapsulates the plural solar cells (Chen – 13,15 in relation to 12 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the encapsulating material fully extends between the first and second sheets so that the first sheet does not directly touch the second sheet (Chen – 13, 15 in relation to 11 and 14 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the encapsulating material has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light (Chen - [0011], [0023] lines 12-14 disclose the light transmittable region (B) has a transmittance of 20% to 99% and a haze of 10 to 99).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses each of the first sheet, the second sheet (Haghanifar - page 2, left column, second full paragraph), and the encapsulating material has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light (Chen – [0023] lines 12-14 disclose the light transmittable region (B) has a transmittance of 20% to 99% and a haze of 10 to 99).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein light passing through the module does not produce minima and maxima of light intensities,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additionally, the limitation “wherein light passing through the module does not produce minima and maxima of light intensities,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an
incident light into electrical energy (abstract), the photovoltaic module comprising plural solar cells configured to transform a first part of the incident light into the electrical energy (12 in Fig. 2); a first sheet that is transparent to incident light (14 in Fig. 2); a second sheet that is transparent to the incident light (11 in Fig. 2); and an encapsulating material distributed between the first and second sheets to hold the first and second sheets together (13,15 in Fig. 2), wherein the plurality solar cells are opaque to the incident light ([0022] L10-11 discloses an opaque region A formed by sheltering of the solar chip) and the plural solar cells and the encapsulating material are sandwiched between the first sheet and the second sheet (12 and 13,15 in relation to 11 and 14).
Chen does not explicitly disclose each of the first and second sheets has a high transparency regarding the incident light and also a high scattering of the incident light, wherein the high transparency is defined as allowing more than 85% light transmission of the incident light, wherein the high scattering is defined as scattering more than 40% of a transmitted light.
Haghanifar discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy (abstract L2 discloses solar cells) and further discloses optoelectronic applications such as solar cells and light emitting-diodes would benefit from substrates with both high transparency and high haze, which increase how much light scatters into or out of the underlying photoactive layers (abstract L2-4). Haghanifar further discloses while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the transparent cover plate (14) and the transparent substrate (11) of Chen with the PET substrates of Haghanifar, because as taught by Haghanifar, while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
Modified Chen discloses the high transparency is defined as allowing more than 85% light transmission of the incident light, and wherein the high scattering is defined as scattering more than 40% of a transmitted light (Haghanifar - page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
Modified Chen discloses a second part of the incident light, which passes through the photovoltaic module, has a uniform light intensity distribution (Chen – [0022]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a second part of the incident light, which passes through the photovoltaic module, has a uniform light intensity distribution due to the high scattering,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 17, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the encapsulating material has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light (Chen - [0011], [0023] lines 12-14 disclose the light transmittable region (B) has a transmittance of 20% to 99% and a haze of 10 to 99).
Regarding claim 18, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses each of the first sheet, the second sheet (Haghanifar - page 2, left column, second full paragraph), and the encapsulating material has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light (Chen – [0023] lines 12-14 disclose the light transmittable region (B) has a transmittance of 20% to 99% and a haze of 10 to 99).
Claims 1, 6-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 105904951A – see attached machine translation) in view of Haghanifar et al. ("Flexible nanograss with highest combination of transparency and haze for optoelectronic plastic substrates") and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2014/0332073).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an
incident light into electrical energy ([0008]), the photovoltaic module comprising: plural solar cells configured to transform a first part of the incident light into the electrical energy ([0009]); a first sheet that is transparent to the incident light (7 in Fig. 1); and a second sheet that is transparent to the incident light (8 in Fig. 1), wherein the plural solar cells are sandwiched between the first sheet and the second sheet (4 in relation to 7 and 8 in Fig. 1).
Jiang does not explicitly disclose each of the first and second sheets has a high
transparency regarding the incident light and also a high scattering of the incident light, wherein the high transparency is defined as allowing more than 85% light transmission of the incident light, and wherein the high scattering is defined as scattering more than 40% of a transmitted light.
Haghanifar discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy (abstract L2 discloses solar cells) and further discloses optoelectronic applications such as solar cells and light emitting-diodes would benefit from substrates with both high transparency and high haze, which increase how much light scatters into or out of the underlying photoactive layers (abstract L2-4). Haghanifar further discloses while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the highly transparent PET release film 7 and the PET backboard 8 of the skylight of Jiang ([0015], [0020]) with the PET substrates of Haghanifar, because as taught by Haghanifar, while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
Modified Jiang discloses the high transparency is defined as allowing more than 85% light transmission of the incident light, and wherein the high scattering is defined as scattering more than 40% of a transmitted light (Haghanifar - page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
Modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose the plural solar cells are opaque to the incident light.
Chen discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy ([0015],[0022]) and further discloses plural solar cells are opaque to incident light ([0022] L10-11 discloses an opaque region A formed by sheltering of the solar chip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the plural solar cells of modified Jiang such that the plural solar cells are opaque to incident light, as disclosed by Chen, because as evidenced by Chen, the use of solar cells that are opaque to incident light amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the solar cells of modified Jiang such that they are opaque to incident light based on the teaching of Chen.
While modified Jiang does disclose a uniform light (Chen – [0022]), with regard to the limitation “a second part of the incident light, which passes through the photovoltaic module, has a uniform light intensity distribution due to the high scattering,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jiang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose the plural solar cells are made of silicon.
Chen discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy ([0015],[0022]) and further discloses plural solar cells made of silicon ([0009] L3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the solar cells of modified Jiang with silicon, as disclosed by Chen, because as evidenced by Chen, the formation of solar cells with silicon amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using silicon to form the solar cells of modified Jiang based on the teaching of Chen.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jiang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jiang further discloses an encapsulating material distributed between the first and second sheets to hold the first and second sheets together (Jiang - [0024] lines 3 through 5).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jiang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jiang further discloses the encapsulating material fully encapsulates the plural solar cells (Jiang – [0020] discloses an EVA packaging layer; 6 in relation to 4 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jiang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jiang further discloses the encapsulating material fully extends between the first and second sheets so that the first sheet does not directly touch the second sheet (Jiang – 6 in relation to 7 and 8 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jiang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose the encapsulating material has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light.
Chen discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy ([0015],[0022]) and further discloses a polyethylene vinyl acetate resin with scattering particles ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include scattering particles, as disclosed by Chen, in the EVA encapsulation material of modified Jiang, because as taught by Chen, the light transmittable region (B) has a transmittance of 20% to 99% and a haze of 10 to 99 ([0023] lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 11, modified Jiang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Jiang does disclose each of the first sheet and the second sheet has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light (Haghanifar - page 2, left column, second full paragraph); modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose the encapsulating material has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light.
Chen discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy ([0015],[0022]) and further discloses a polyethylene vinyl acetate resin with scattering particles ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include scattering particles, as disclosed by Chen, in the EVA encapsulation material of modified Jiang, because as taught by Chen, the light transmittable region (B) has a transmittance of 20% to 99% and a haze of 10 to 99 ([0023] lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jiang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein light passing through the module does not produce minima and maxima of light intensities,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additionally, the limitation “wherein light passing through the module does not produce minima and maxima of light intensities,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 13, Jiang discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an
incident light into electrical energy ([0008]), the photovoltaic module comprising: plural solar cells configured to transform the incident light into the electrical energy ([0009]); a first sheet that is transparent to the incident light (7 in Fig. 1); and a second sheet that is transparent to the incident light (8 in Fig. 1), an encapsulating material distributed between the first and second sheets to hold the first and second sheets together ([0024] lines 3 through 5), wherein the plural solar cells and the encapsulating material are sandwiched between the first sheet and the second sheet (4 and 6 in relation to 7 and 8 in Fig. 1).
Jiang does not explicitly disclose each of the first and second sheets has a high
transparency regarding the incident light and also a high scattering of the incident light, wherein the high transparency is defined as allowing more than 85% light transmission of the incident light, and wherein the high scattering is defined as scattering more than 40% of a transmitted light.
Haghanifar discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy (abstract L2 discloses solar cells) and further discloses optoelectronic applications such as solar cells and light emitting-diodes would benefit from substrates with both high transparency and high haze, which increase how much light scatters into or out of the underlying photoactive layers (abstract L2-4). Haghanifar further discloses while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the highly transparent PET release film 7 and the PET backboard 8 of the skylight of Jiang ([0015], [0020]) with the PET substrates of Haghanifar, because as taught by Haghanifar, while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
Modified Jiang discloses the high transparency is defined as allowing more than 85% light transmission of the incident light, and wherein the high scattering is defined as scattering more than 40% of a transmitted light (Haghanifar - page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
Modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose the plural solar cells are opaque to the incident light.
Chen discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy ([0015],[0022]) and further discloses plural solar cells are opaque to incident light ([0022] L10-11 discloses an opaque region A formed by sheltering of the solar chip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the plural solar cells of modified Jiang such that the plural solar cells are opaque to incident light, as disclosed by Chen, because as evidenced by Chen, the use of solar cells that are opaque to incident light amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the solar cells of modified Jiang such that they are opaque to incident light based on the teaching of Chen.
While modified Jiang does disclose a uniform light (Chen – [0022]), with regard to the limitation “a second part of the incident light, which passes through the photovoltaic module, has a uniform light intensity distribution due to the high scattering,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jiang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose the encapsulating material has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light.
Chen discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy ([0015],[0022]) and further discloses a polyethylene vinyl acetate resin with scattering particles ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include scattering particles, as disclosed by Chen, in the EVA encapsulation material of modified Jiang, because as taught by Chen, the light transmittable region (B) has a transmittance of 20% to 99% and a haze of 10 to 99 ([0023] lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jiang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Jiang does disclose each of the first sheet and the second sheet has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light (Haghanifar - page 2, left column, second full paragraph); modified Jiang does not explicitly disclose the encapsulating material has the high transparency regarding the incident light and also the high scattering of the incident light.
Chen discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy ([0015],[0022]) and further discloses a polyethylene vinyl acetate resin with scattering particles ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include scattering particles, as disclosed by Chen, in the EVA encapsulation material of modified Jiang, because as taught by Chen, the light transmittable region (B) has a transmittance of 20% to 99% and a haze of 10 to 99 ([0023] lines 12-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that paragraphs 29 and 34 of the originally filed specification explain that light passing through the claimed photovoltaic module is scattered, which results in a uniform light intensity distribution behind the module.
In response to Applicant’s argument, claim 12 recites “wherein light passing through the module does not produce minima and maxima of light intensities,” and is not commensurate with the description “light passing through the claimed photovoltaic module is scattered, which results in a uniform light intensity distribution behind the module.” As set forth in the office action, the manner in which light passes through a module without producing minimum or maximum light intensity is unclear.
Applicant argues that given that the invention in Jiang is a car sunroof, a primary
function of which is to allow ambient light into the vehicle’s cabin, it is reasonable to infer that opaque solar cells would be undesirable.
In response to Applicant’s argument, while Jiang does disclose a skylight ([0020]), this disclosure does not preclude the use of opaque solar cells. Jiang does not disclose the solar cells are transparent, and one skilled in the art of photovoltaics would have no reason to believe the solar cells of Jiang are transparent.
Applicant argues that there is no mention of light passing through the solar cell layer in Jiang. In response to Applicant’s argument, Jiang discloses a skylight ([0020]).
Applicant argues that a primary and inherent function of a sunroof is to allow occupants of a vehicle to see through the roof, providing a clear view of the sky.
In response to Applicant’s argument, while Jiang does disclose a skylight ([0020]), Jiang’s disclosure of a sunroof does not require the function of providing a clear view of the sky. Jiang’s disclosure of a skylight simply requires light to enter the cabin of the vehicle. The high transparency substrate of Haghanifar would not be contrary to the fundamental purpose of Jiang’s disclosed skylight.
Applicant’s argument that opaque cells would eliminate the sunroof’s ability to illuminate the vehicle cabin is not persuasive because Jiang does not disclose the solar cells are transparent. Absent a teaching in Jiang, one skilled in the art of photovoltaics would not understand Jiang’s skylight ([0020]) as requiring transparent solar cells.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating a highly scattering, blurring material into a car sunroof would destroy its primary function as a window. In response to Applicant’s argument, the high transparency substrate of Haghanifar would not be contrary to the fundamental purpose of Jiang’s disclosed skylight ([0020]).
Applicant argues that Jiang is silent regarding the properties of any light that might pass through the module. In response to Applicant’s argument, Jiang discloses a skylight in paragraph [0020]. Additionally, Applicant’s argument that the use of high-transmittance, low-scattering materials as taught by Jiang would inherently result in a non-uniform light distribution, creating distinct shadows from the solar cells, is not directed to modified Jiang as set forth in the office action. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the substrate recommended by Haghanifar is specifically for the power cells, and not for the space between the power cells.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the rejection set forth in the office action relies on the teachings of Jiang modified by Haghanifar and Chen. Specifically, the office action states Jiang does not explicitly disclose each of the first and second sheets has a high transparency regarding the incident light and also a high scattering of the incident light, wherein the high transparency is defined as allowing more than 85% light transmission of the incident light, and wherein the high scattering is defined as scattering more than 40% of a transmitted light.
Haghanifar discloses a photovoltaic module for transforming an incident light into electrical energy (abstract L2 discloses solar cells) and further discloses optoelectronic applications such as solar cells and light emitting-diodes would benefit from substrates with both high transparency and high haze, which increase how much light scatters into or out of the underlying photoactive layers (abstract L2-4). Haghanifar further discloses while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the highly transparent PET release film 7 and the PET backboard 8 of the skylight of Jiang ([0015], [0020]) with the PET substrates of Haghanifar, because as taught by Haghanifar, while bare PET has a transparency and haze of 88.4% and 1.1% at 550 nm, respectively, the 9 micron height nanograss samples exhibit a transparency and haze of 92.4% and 89.4%, respectively (page 2, left column, second full paragraph).
Applicant argues that Haghanifar’s teaching is directed to managing light for improved power conversion, not to controlling the properties of light transmitted through an entire module. Applicant further argues that Haghanifar provides no disclosure or suggestion of achieving a uniform light intensity distribution on the exit side of a photovoltaic module.
In response to Applicant’s argument, modified Jiang is relied upon to teach the claim limitations as set forth in the office action, not Haghanifar in isolation. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, in response to Applicant's argument that Haghanifar’s teaching is directed to managing light for improved power conversion, not to controlling the properties of light transmitted through the entire module, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues there would be no motivation to combine Jiang and Haghanifar to achieve the claimed feature, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art might be motivated to replace Jiang’s transparent layers with Haghanifar’s high-haze substrate to potentially increase the amount of scattered light reaching Jiang’s solar cells, thereby improving power generation, however, this motivation is unrelated to the uniformity of light passing through the module.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth above, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726