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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the continuous graphene matrix layer additionally functions as a heat-spreading layer to reduce resistive hotspots”.
No support was provided by Applicant for this new limitation. It is noted that the instant specification has only disclosed in paragraph 31:
[31] The graphene-silicon module described herein has optimal abilities to dissipate heat. Initial measurements of thermal conductivity ranged from 4840±440 to 5300±480 W/mK, which is more than double that of diamond (whose thermal conductivity ranges from 900 to 2320 W/mK). Inability to dissipate heat in prior art modules is responsible for a significant reduction in the efficiency of electricity production, with some measurements suggesting that up to 71 % of the loss of efficiency results when the modules exceed 25 degrees Celsius or 77 degrees Fahrenheit. The use of Graphene results in only a 0.5% loss of efficiency with each degree above 25 degrees Celsius.
Therefore, nowhere does the instant specification recites resistive hotspots and has only recited graphene is known to dissipate heat, which is a well-known material property.
Claim 18 recites “the continuous graphene matrix layer is embedded within a polymer encapsulant layer comprising EVA or TPO to form an integrated conductive-encapsulant composite”.
Applicant asserts support for the new claim can be found on page 2 and 8 of the instant specification, where it states:
PNG
media_image1.png
272
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The instant specification further discloses in paragraph 23 that:
[23] The photovoltaic module is characterized by the fact that connections of the individual silicon cells is done with use of graphene electrode in the form of full graphene grid or graphene strips set in polymer foil applied directly onto the cell from both sides, on the exposed side and on the underside.
However, nowhere does the instant specification disclose the polymer foil to be EVA or TPO to form an integrated conductive-encapsulant composite as recited. Additionally, the claim limitation “continuous graphene matrix layer” suggests the layer includes graphene and another component to be a “matrix”, such that nowhere does the instant specification discloses the “continuous graphene matrix layer” to be further embedded within a polymer encapsulant layer as recited, either.
Therefore, the claims fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 14, and 16-21 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a matrix conductor comprising a continuous graphene electrode" followed with “the matrix conductor comprises high-strength metallurgical graphene”. It is unclear if the high-strength metallurgical graphene is further defining the continuous graphene electrode or is another component of the matrix conductor. It appears the limitation intends to further define the continuous graphene electrode to be made of high-strength metallurgical graphene based on previously presented claim 1, such that clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation at least one set of silicon photovoltaic cells, and the claim also recites multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is unclear if only “at least one set of silicon photovoltaic cells” is required or “multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells” are required by the claim since both are recited in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the continuous graphene matrix layer” in the newly added limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no continuous graphene matrix layer was previously recited. It is unclear if the limitation is the same as “the matrix conductor” previously recited in the claim. Clarification is requested. Similar deficiency is also found in the newly added claims 18-21.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “front and rear surfaces”. It is unclear what is being described as having front and rear surfaces without further information. It appears the limitation is intended to be directed to front and rear surfaces of the silicon photovoltaic cells. Clarification is requested.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the continuous graphene matrix layer is configured to maintain electrical conductivity despite presence of micro-cracks in the silicon photovoltaic cells". It is unclear how the continuous graphene matrix layer is configured structurally for this feature, such that it is unclear what the metes and bounds for the claimed invention is in claim 20. Additionally, it is unclear whether the silicon photovoltaic cells are required to have micro-cracks. Clarification is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The subject matters of claims 3-5 are all recited in amended claim 1, such that they do not further limit the claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 14, 16, 17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 2015-0020899; see English machine translation) in view of Gajewski et al. (“Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy investigations of High Strength Metallurgical Graphene transferred on low-density polyethylene”) in view of Shumate et al. (US 2015/0228810) in view of Loh et al. (US 2014/0190550).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a photovoltaic module (see Figure 5) comprising:
at least one set of silicon photovoltaic cells (top two absorption layer 10 in Figure 5; it is disclosed silicon can be used as the absorbing layer; [0031]);
a matrix conductor (second graphene layer 40) comprising a continuous graphene electrode layer interconnecting the silicon photovoltaic cells of the at least one set (it is disclosed the graphene electrode interconnects the photovoltaic cells in series, which is in the form of a layer; [0038]; see Figure 5); and
at least one additional module layer (top first insulating layer 20) covering the silicon photovoltaic cells of the at least one set (see Figure 5);
wherein the matrix conductor as comprises graphene and functions as an active conductive layer ([0003]);
wherein the continuous graphene matrix layer provides conduction for both front and rear surfaces (as seen in Figure 5, the second graphene layer 40 electrically connects to the rear surface of the first photovoltaic cell 10 and to the front surface of the second photovoltaic cell 10); and
wherein the continuous graphene matrix layer additionally functions as a heat-spreading layer to reduce resistive hotspots (graphene is known to be a great conductor of electricity and heat; [0003]).
Choi does not expressly disclose said graphene comprises high-strength metallurgical graphene.
Gajewski discloses high strength metallurgical graphene having better characteristics than CVD graphene, such that high strength metallurgical graphene is better quality graphene with less structure defects (first two paragraphs of 3. Results and discussions; page 73) and smaller variations of CPD (4. Conclusion; see Figure 5).
As Choi is not limited to any specific examples of graphene to be used as the electrode and as high strength metallurgical graphene as a better quality graphene capable of being used in electronic devices was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Gajewski above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any suitable graphene material, including high strength metallurgical graphene in the device of Choi. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Modified Choi does not expressly disclose the silicon photovoltaic cells comprise bifacial photovoltaic cells.
Shumate discloses the use of silicon solar cells as bifacial solar cells ([0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a silicon bifacial photovoltaic cell to be used in the device of modified Choi, as taught by Shumate, so that light can be absorbed on both sides of the photovoltaic module for improved light conversion to electricity.
Modified Choi does not expressly disclose connections between multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells are achieved through the continuous graphene matrix layer configured to provide both serial and parallel conduction paths.
Loh discloses serially connecting two tandem photovoltaic cells in Figures 1 and 2 and connecting two photovoltaic cells in parallel in Figures 3 and 4, where the interconnector is a graphene layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the connection between the tandem sets of silicon photovoltaic cells in modified Choi either to be in series or in parallel, as taught by Loh, as it is well known in the art by one of ordinary skill in the art the connection of tandem solar cells in series and/or in parallel increases the efficiency, as disclosed by Loh ([0005]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses connections between multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 4, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said connections between multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells comprise serial connections (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said connections between multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells comprise parallel connections (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 8, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said photovoltaic module excludes a busbar (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said photovoltaic module excludes silver paste (Choi does not mention using silver paste).
Regarding claim 16, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses at least one set of silicon photovoltaic cells is expandable by addition of elements to the matrix conductor (it is disclosed that a multilayer structure with graphene and other materials can be used; [0034]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said matrix conductor is placed on top of the at least one set of silicon photovoltaic cells (as set forth above, see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the continuous graphene matrix layer provides full-surface current collection across substantially entire area of each silicon photovoltaic cell (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 20, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the continuous graphene matrix layer is configured to maintain electrical conductivity despite presence of micro-cracks in the silicon photovoltaic cells (the graphene matrix layer is continuous, such that it would maintain electrical conductivity).
Regarding claim 21, modified Choi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the continuous graphene matrix layer eliminates high-temperature soldering during module assembly by enabling lamination based electrical interconnection (it is disclosed the electrical interconnection is made through lamination; [0014]).
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 204680679; see English machine translation) in view of Gajewski et al. (“Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy investigations of High Strength Metallurgical Graphene transferred on low-density polyethylene”) in view of Shumate et al. (US 2015/0228810).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a photovoltaic module (see Figure 1) comprising:
at least one set of silicon photovoltaic cells (battery sheet);
a matrix conductor comprising a continuous graphene electrode layer (graphene conductive film 6) interconnecting the silicon photovoltaic cells of the at least one set (it is disclosed the graphene conductive tape serially connects the battery sheet); and
at least one additional module layer (first encapsulation layer 2) covering the silicon photovoltaic cells of the at least one set (see Figure 1);
wherein the matrix conductor comprises graphene and functions as an active conductive layer;
wherein the continuous graphene matrix layer provides conduction for both front and rear surfaces; and
wherein connections between multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells are achieved through the continuous graphene matrix layer (it is disclosed the conductive tape made of graphene conductive film is used to connect the photovoltaic cells in a string; [0008]; see Figure 1); and
wherein the continuous graphene matrix layer additionally functions as a heat spreading layer to reduce resistive hotspots (it is well known in the art that graphene is a good heat conductor).
Modified Zhang does not expressly disclose said graphene comprises high-strength metallurgical graphene.
Gajewski discloses high strength metallurgical graphene having better characteristics than CVD graphene, such that high strength metallurgical graphene is better quality graphene with less structure defects (first two paragraphs of 3. Results and discussions; page 73) and smaller variations of CPD (4. Conclusion; see Figure 5).
As modified Zhang is not limited to any specific examples of graphene to be used as the electrode and as high strength metallurgical graphene as a better quality graphene capable of being used in electronic devices was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Gajewski above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any suitable graphene material, including high strength metallurgical graphene in the device of modified Zhang. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Modified Zhang does not expressly disclose the silicon photovoltaic cells comprise bifacial photovoltaic cells and the continuous graphene matrix layer configured to provide both serial and parallel conduction paths
Shumate discloses the use of silicon solar cells as bifacial solar cells ([0086]) and it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect solar cells in parallel to yield a high current ([0087]), such that an array of solar cells are commonly connected in series and in parallel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a silicon bifacial photovoltaic cell to be used in the device of modified Zhang, as taught by Shumate, so that light can be absorbed on both sides of the photovoltaic module for improved light conversion to electricity.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells in parallel in the device of modified Zhang, as taught by Shumate, so that a desired output for the module can be achieved, where connecting photovoltaic cells in parallel would yield a high current, as set forth above by Shumate.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses connections between multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said connections between multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells comprise serial connections (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said connections between multiple sets of silicon photovoltaic cells comprise parallel connections (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said at least one additional module layer comprises a polymer layer comprising EVA or TPO ([0015]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said at least one additional module layer comprises a protective film layer (glass; [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a collector (it is disclosed a junction box is mounted; [0045]) wherein said collector provides an external electrical connection (it is inherent a junction box provides external electrical connection).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a frame ([0055]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said frame comprises aluminum ([0055]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one set of silicon photovoltaic cells comprise sixty photovoltaic cells connected by the matrix conductor (it is disclosed a string has 12 cells connected in series and a total of 6 strings are shown in the example of Figure 1, such that the at last one set of silicon photovoltaic cells comprise sixty photovoltaic cells connected by the matrix conductor; [0043]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said photovoltaic module excludes silver paste (Zhang does not mention using silver paste).
Regarding claim 16, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses at least one set of silicon photovoltaic cells is expandable by addition of elements to the matrix conductor (the graphene conductive film 6 is stacked on a conductive adhesive 7; [0041]; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said matrix conductor is placed on top of the at least one set of silicon photovoltaic cells (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the continuous graphene matrix layer is embedded within a polymer encapsulant layer comprising EVA or TPO to form an integrated conductive-encapsulant composite (as set forth in claim 6, the second packing layer 4 is made of EVA).
Regarding claim 20, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the continuous graphene matrix layer is configured to maintain electrical conductivity despite presence of micro-cracks in the silicon photovoltaic cells (the graphene matrix layer is continuous, such that it would maintain electrical conductivity).
Regarding claim 21, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the continuous graphene matrix layer eliminates high-temperature soldering during module assembly by enabling lamination based electrical interconnection (it is disclosed the electrical interconnection is made through lamination and replaces high temperature welding; [0030], [0049] and [0054]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been addressed. However, numerous new issues have been introduced, as set forth above in the 35 USC 112 section.
Applicant’s argument that Choi’s graphene electrode layer is not a continuous conductive layer encompassing all cells was not found to be persuasive because it is not directed to the invention as claimed.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention requires a continuous graphene matrix layer integrated into the encapsulant.
However, nowhere does the instant specification discloses this feature. Additionally, it is unclear if Applicant is referring to the face the encapsulant of the photovoltaic module encapsulates the graphene matrix, in which Choi discloses because the encapsulant 20 encapsulates the graphene matrix, as shown in Figure 5.
Applicant’s numerous arguments with respect to Zhang were not found to be persuasive because they are not directed to the invention as claimed or they are not supported by the instant specification, as set forth above.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13, 14, and 16-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722