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 § 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(s) 1, 6, 29, 30 and 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplow et al, USPAT 4,352,948 and further in view of Shahar, Haim US 20140251410 A1.
Kaplow teaches:
a PV cell formed of a single semiconductor wafer,
wherein the PV cell and said semiconductor wafer (11) have a sunny-side surface that is configured to absorb light,
wherein the PV cell and said semiconductor wafer (11) have a dark-side surface that is opposite to said sunny-side surface;
wherein the PV cell is configured to generate electric current from light via the PV effect;
wherein the said semiconductor wafer (11) comprises a plurality of non-transcending gaps (12, 25, or 36) (figures 1, 3 and 4) that penetrate upwardly from the dark-side surface towards the sunny-side surface but do not reach said sunny-side surface, said gaps (12, 25, 36) being elongated grooves so that said dark-side surface of said semiconductor wafer comprises thick miniature sub-regions separated one from the other by thin regions of said elongated grooves; Figures 1, 3 and 4
wherein said elongated grooves are oriented in at least one direction and penetrate from said dark-side surface towards said sunny-side surface into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer, and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of said miniature sub-regions; Figures 1, 3 and 4
wherein each said miniature sub-region has a surface area or a footprint area, measured at the sunny-side surface of the PV cell;
wherein said elongated grooves cause plurality of said PV cell and said semiconductor wafer to be flexible in at least one direction;
Kaplow fails to teach:
Wherein the surface area is in a range of 0.1 to 500 square-millimeters;
Kaplow does not specifically disclose the recited depth or surface area. However, Kaplow teaches the depth of the grooves being greater than half the substrate thickness (col. 4, lines 9-26) with grooves 25 shown in Fig. 3 greater than any other grooves to an extent having 0.001 - 0.002-inch offset D₂ from the surface (cols. 4 and 5, lines 63- 68 and 1-5 respectively and Fig. 3) which would yield intact and non-penetrated thin layer of the semiconductor wafer.
The Federal Circuit informs us that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir 2003) citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In rc Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); and In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05
Kaplow fails to teach:
wherein the PV cell further comprises:
a top-side set of conducting wires, that are electrically connected immediately on top of the sunny-side surface of said semiconductor wafer to collect and transport current from electric charges.
Shahar teaches:
Photovoltaic panel 20 is based on a planar, electrically insulating substrate sheet 22 that preferably is made of epoxy. Electrical conductors such as copper are plated by standard printed circuit board fabrication techniques on the two sides of substrate 22: upper conductors 24 on the upper side of substrate 22 and lower conductors 26 on the lower side of substrate 26. (para 43, Figure 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Shahar, with the primary teachings of Kaplow, because the photovoltaic cell 28 creates a voltage difference between the two upper conductors 24 that causes an electrical current to flow through the two upper conductors 24. (para 43).
Shahar further teaches:
6. (Currently amended) The flexible and mechanically-resilient PV cell according to claim 1, wherein the top-side set of conducting wires (24) comprises a set of conducting wires that are embedded within a top-side transparent flexible adhesive foil of plastic material (32), which mechanically adheres the top-side set of conducting wires to the sunny-side surface of said semiconductor wafer, and which enables passage of light through the top-side transparent flexible adhesive foil of plastic material (32) to towards the sunny-side surface of said semiconductor wafer (22).
Kaplow further teaches:
18. (Currently Amended) The flexible and mechanically-resilient PV cell according to claim 1, wherein said flexible PV cell is a flexible, mechanically resilient, curved or non-planar article having said plurality of segmented sub-regions that convert light into electricity via the PV effect. Figures 1,3 and 4.
29. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein in cross section a portion of said elongated grooves close to said sunny-side surface is "V-shaped" or "U-shaped. See Figures 1,3 and 4
30. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein in cross section a portion of said elongated grooves close to said sunny-side surface is parallel to said sunny-side surface. See Figures 1,3 and 4
31. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein said elongated grooves are at least partially filled with a gap filler material.
32. (New) The PV cell of claim 31, wherein said elongated grooves are only partially filled with said gap filling material.
33. (New) The PV cell of claim 31, wherein said elongated grooves are completely filled with said gap filling material.
Kaplow discloses wherein each non-transcending gap is entirely filled with one or more filler materials that absorb mechanical shocks or provides thermal durability to said semiconductor wafer. (col. 3, lines 35-40)
40. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein a thickness of said semiconductor wafer is less than 500 micrometers.
41. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein a width of said elongated grooves at said dark- side surface of said semiconductor wafer is between 10 and 50 percent of the thickness of said semiconductor wafer.
42. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein a width of said elongated grooves at said dark- side surface of said semiconductor wafer is between 10 and 25 percent of the thickness of said semiconductor wafer.
43. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein the surface area of each said miniature sub-region is in the range of 0.1 to 100 square millimeter.
In regards to claims 40-43,
Kaplow does not specifically disclose the recited depth, thickness or surface area. However, Kaplow teaches the depth of the grooves being greater than half the substrate thickness (col. 4, lines 9-26) with grooves 25 shown in Fig. 3 greater than any other grooves to an extent having 0.001 - 0.002-inch offset D₂ from the surface (cols. 4 and 5, lines 63- 68 and 1-5 respectively and Fig. 3) which would yield intact and non-penetrated thin layer of the semiconductor wafer.
The Federal Circuit informs us that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir 2003) citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In rc Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); and In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplow et al, USPAT 4,352,948 in view of Shahar, Haim US 20140251410 A1 and in further view of KR 20030030967 A.
Kaplow teaches:
23. (Currently amended) A method of producing a flexible and mechanically-resilient Photovoltaic (PV) cell from a single semiconductor wafer wherein the PV cell is configured to generate electric current from light via the PV effect, the method comprising:
(a) providing a semiconductor wafer (11),
wherein the PV cell semiconductor wafer has an incipient sunny-side surface that is configured to absorb light,
wherein the semiconductor wafer (11) has an incipient dark-side surface that is opposite to said sunny-side surface;
(b) creating in said semiconductor wafer a plurality of non-transcending gaps (12.25 and 36) (figures 1, 3 and 4), that penetrate from the incipient dark-side surface towards the incipient sunny-side surface but do not reach said sunny-side surface, said gaps (12, 25, 36) being elongated grooves so that said semiconductor wafer comprises thick miniature sub-regions separated one from the other by thin regions of said elongated grooves;
wherein elongated grooves are oriented in at least one direction and penetrate from said dark-side surface towards said sunny-side surface into between 80 to 99.9 percent of a height of said semiconductor wafer, and segment said semiconductor wafer into a plurality of said miniature sub-regions; (figure 1, 3 and 4)
wherein each said miniature sub-region has a surface area, measured at the sunny-side surface of the semiconductor wafer;
wherein said elongated grooves cause said PV cell semiconductor wafer to be flexible in at least one direction;
Kaplow does not specifically disclose the recited depth or surface area. However, Kaplow teaches the depth of the grooves being greater than half the substrate thickness (col. 4, lines 9-26) with grooves 25 shown in Fig. 3 greater than any other grooves to an extent having 0.001 - 0.002-inch offset D₂ from the surface (cols. 4 and 5, lines 63- 68 and 1-5 respectively and Fig. 3) which would yield intact and non-penetrated thin layer of the semiconductor wafer.
The Federal Circuit informs us that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir 2003) citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In rc Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); and In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05
Shahar teaches:
(c) placing a top-side set of conducting wires (24), embedded within a top-side flexible transparent adhesive plastic foil (32), over the sunny-side surface of the semiconductor wafer;
Kaplow and Shahar fail to teach:
performing a heating process, at a temperature that is lower than 150 degrees Celsius, to melt and/or soften the top-side flexible transparent adhesive plastic foil, and causing electrical connection between said conducting wires and of the sunny-side surface of the PV cell semiconductor wafer, thereby electrically attaching said conducting wires to said sunny-side surface of said semiconductor wafer for current collection and current transport.
KR 20030030967 A teaches:
Using a 160 ° C hot roller in a roller laminator, on the solar cell arrays arranged at regular intervals, the composite film for the cover is located on the bottom side and the composite film for the back is located on the top side. For optimum adhesion, the composite film was preheated with an infrared lamp. The feed rate of the roller laminator was 0.3 m / min. Modules of size 15 × 15 cm 2 could be produced within 30 seconds. (machine translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of ‘967, with the primary references of Shahar and Kaplow, because [a] bubble-free photovoltaic module (modules 4 and 5) was fabricated to embed the solar cell without cracking and breaking. Machine translation
25. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim [[24]] 23,
wherein performing said heating process is done using a heating roller to create an air-free and bubble-free adhesion of the sunny-side set of conducting wires to the sunny-side surface of the semiconductor wafer. See machine translation
Claim(s) 13, 34-39 and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplow et al, USPAT 4,352,948 and in view of Shahar, Haim US 20140251410 A1 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of KR 20030030967 A.
Kaplow and Shahar fail to teach:
13. (Currently amended) The flexible and mechanically-resilient PV cell according to claim 6, wherein the top-side transparent flexible adhesive foil of plastic material is a component selected from the group consisting of:
a high-elasticity stretchable polyolefin film,
a rigid-flex polyester (PET) film,
a rigid polyester (PET) film,
acrylic,
a fluorinated polymer,
thermoplastic urethane, and
combinations thereof.
34. (New) The PV cell of claim 31, wherein said gap filler material is selected from the group consisting of EPDM, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), fluoropolymer, HIPS (high-impact polystyrene), PDMS, PFE, polybutadiene neoprene, block copolymers of polystyrene- polybutadiene and/or polystyrene-polyisoprene (diblock, triblock, multiblock and random copolymers), polyolefin elastomer (POE), PVDF, rubber, Silicone, thermoplastic elastomers (TPEs), thermoplastic olefin (TPO), thermoplastic urethane (TPU), and combinations thereof.
35. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein said sunny-side surface is laminated with a transparent protective layer.
36.(New) The PV cell of claim 35, wherein said transparent protective layer is made out of transparent and/or colored and/or patterned and/or embossed fluoropolymer, PET, PVC, EPDM, ETFE, ECTFE, epoxy, EVA, FEP, fluorinated polymer, acrylic, PC, PVDF, PEF, PET, POE, PP, PE, TPU, silicone, fiberglass and combinations thereof.
37. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein said dark-side surface is laminated with a protective layer.
38. (New) The PV cell of claim 37, wherein said protective layer is a support sheet made out of polyolefin, PDMS, EPDM, silicone, polyurethane, fluoropolymer, PET, PVC, ETFE, ECTFE, acrylic, PC, PVDF, PEF, POE, PP, PE, Al, silicone and combinations thereof.
39. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, wherein said semiconductor wafer is coated with a protective layer on both said sunny-side and said dark-side so as to be encapsulated.
45. (New) The PV cell of claim 1, said grooves in a pattern comprising a first set of parallel lines that intersect at a particular angle with a second set of parallel lines.
46. (New) The PV cell of claim 45, wherein said particular angle is 90 degrees.
47. (New) The PV cell of claim 45, wherein said particular angle is not a right angle.
In regards to the claims above. ‘967 teaches:
In another preferred manufacturing method, a continuous photovoltaic module is made by successively pasting the lid 10, back 11 and solar cell array 14 in a roller laminator 12 (see FIG. 5). In this case, the soldered or adhesively connected solar cells are positioned on the back film at right angles to the laminating direction. Before the solar cells leave the roll, their right and left sections are soldered to the leading solar cell and the subsequent solar cell, respectively, or connected to each other using conductive adhesives in a manner known to experts (15). This makes it possible to create modules with any desired length. After laminating the module, it can be cut into various lengths, the width of which is always equal to the solar cell length 17 and the length is equal to a multiple of the solar cell width 18. The cutting device is used to cut the module along line 16 (see FIG. 6).
Aliphatic diisocyanates (a) that can be used are aliphatic and cycloaliphatic diisocyanates or mixtures thereof (Houben-Weyl, "Methoden der Organischen Chemie [Methods of Organic Chemistry]", volume E20, " Makromolekulare Stoffe [Macromolecular Substances] ", Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, New York 1987, p. 1587-1593} or Jutus Liebigs Annalen der Chemie, 562, pages 75 to 136).
Specific examples thereof include aliphatic diisocyanates such as ethylene diisocyanate, 1,4-tetramethylene-diisocyanate, 1,6-hexamethylene-diisocyanate and 1,12-dodecane-diisocyanate; Alicyclic diisocyanates such as isophorone-diisocyanate, 1,4-cyclohexane-diisocyanate, 1-methyl-2,4-cyclohexane-diisocyanate and 1-methyl-2,6-cyclohexane-di Isocyanates and corresponding isomer mixtures, 4,4'-dicyclohexylmethane-diisocyanate, 2,4'-dicyclohexylmethane-diisocyanate and 2,2'-dicyclohexylmethane-diisocyanate and the corresponding Mention may be made of isomeric mixtures. Preference is given to 1,6-hexamethylene-diisocyanate, 1,4-cyclohexane-diisocyanate, isophorone-diisocyanate and dicyclohexylmethane-diisocyanate and isomer mixtures thereof. The diisocyanates may be used alone or in the form of a mixture of several diisocyanates. These can also be used with polyisocyanates of up to 15 mol% (calculated based on the total moles of diisocyanate), with the amount of polyisocyanate being such that the resulting product is still thermoplastic. (machine translation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of ‘967, with the primary references of Shahar and Kaplow, because [a] bubble-free photovoltaic module (modules 4 and 5) was fabricated to embed the solar cell without cracking and breaking [and] [t]he efficiency of the photovoltaic module did not change with the production process. (machine translation)
Claim(s) 14 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplow et al, USPAT 4,352,948 and in view of Shahar, Haim US 20140251410 A1 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view Eckert et al, US 20070251570 A1.
The above references fail to teach:
14. (Currently amended) The flexible and mechanically-resilient PV cell according to claim 1, wherein the top-side set of conducting wires, is non-planar and is non-flat to improve an overall elasticity of said flexible and mechanically-resilient PV cell.
44. (New) The PV cell of claim 36, further comprising a fiber embedded in said transparent protective layer.
Eckert teaches:
[0052] The mesh electrode of the photovoltaic cell comprises a conductive mesh material. Suitable mesh materials include, but are not limited to, metals (such as, for example, silver, gold, copper, aluminum, palladium, platinum, titanium, stainless steels, and alloys thereof) and conductive polymers such as, e.g., poly(3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene), polythiopene derivatives and polyaniline. Preferably, the mesh material comprises metal wire. The conductive mesh material can also comprise an electrically insulative material that has been rendered conductive by, for example, a metal coating or metallization. The electrically insulative material can comprise a fiber such as, for example, a textile fiber or optical fiber. Examples of suitable fibers include synthetic polymeric fibers (such as, e.g., nylons) and natural fibers (such as, e.g., flax, cotton, wool and silk).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above references, because the wire mesh electrode can function as the transparent cathode of a DSSC. (para 43, Eckert)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplow et al, USPAT 4,352,948 and in view of Shahar, Haim US 20140251410 A1 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view Yamada et al, US 5,500,631.
The above references fail to teach:
21. (Original) The flexible and mechanically-resilient PV cell according to claim 1,
wherein the flexible and mechanically-resilient PV cell is a part of an apparatus selected from the group consisting of:
a vehicle, a marine vessel, an aircraft, a spacecraft,
a building, a wall, a roof, a roof shingle, a door,
a helmet, a wearable article, an electronic device.
Yamada discloses a PV cell which is an integrated part of a floating solar device (Figs. 1- 5, cols. 1and 16, lines 56-67 and 59-67 respectively). The teachings of Yamada can be incorporated with Kaplow's device which would result in the claimed invention. The motivation to combine the teachings of Yamada would be to utilize the FPVs that float on bodies of water providing an increased yield compared to conventional ground-mounted PV cells. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Yamada to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dutta, Achyut Kumar US 20170236953-A teaches said claimed invention along with Frank et al, DE 27273620 in combination with Shahar, Haim US 20140251410 A1 and KR 20030030967 A.
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 MICHAEL LEBENTRITT whose telephone number is (571)272-1873. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Mon- Fri 8:30 am- 6 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571)272-1236. 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.
MICHAEL . LEBENTRITT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2893
/MICHAEL LEBENTRITT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights