Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach all the electrodes being located below the wafer or layer. This argument is not persuasive. Baba clearly teaches the electrodes under the wafer/layer. The only way to construe the phrase to overcome Baba is to do so in a way that would render applicant’s invention inoperable, i.e. no electron return pathway to the solar wafer or light sensor.
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.
Claims 1-16, 18-23 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 all electrodes of the light sensor and the antenna are located below the semiconductor material wafer or layer. This is not possible. At least one electrode must extend on the other side to provide a layer the electrons can flow through. Applicant most likely means all negative electrodes are on the below side, or alternatively all external electrodes are on the below side. That is to say one of the electrode types, or those electrodes that extend to the external elements as to not otherwise be required for the operation of the system can reasonably be on one side only. However, as claimed the invention is impossible which requires the reader to speculate about which possible interpretation is intended. Thus the claim is indefinite because it requires the reader to make a speculative decision as to the intended scope. Claim 12 similarly recites “all electrodes of the light sensor being located below the semiconductor wafer or layer”.
Claims 2-11 and 13- 16, 18-23 are rejected on the basis of their dependency from claims 1 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 11, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2020/0401085).
With regard to claim 1 Baba discloses a
a case (30 figure 2) having a top opening (left side of page 3, top of figure 2 per orientation of the “Fig. 2” Text);
a crystal (33) closing this top opening (figure 2);
a movement (140);
an analog display (21-23) driven by the movement (140);
an assembly (50) located between the movement (140) and the analog display (21-23) and comprising a light sensor (50) which is formed by
a semiconductor material wafer or layer (50);
at least one negative electrode and at least one positive electrode (50 is a solar cell which must inherently comprise electrodes on opposing sides and electrode signs to allow the flow of electrons to occur; see circuit diagram 50 figure 4); and
an antenna (abstract, paragraphs 53, 56; 59 figure 3) arranged to communicate through the crystal (33) with a communication device external to the watch (paragraphs 71, 80),
wherein said assembly includes a first portion and a second portion that is separate from the first portion with respect to the general plane of said assembly (50 – solar cells are separated between a positive and negative sheet allowing electrons to be selected on one side due to the influence of solar activity of the separated region),
wherein said at least one positive electrode and said at least one negative electrode are arranged entirely in said first portion (there is no depiction of those electrodes being arranged elsewhere. Moreover, the solar cell must operate as a solar cell including the flow of electrons over the region of operation), wherein said second portion is without electrodes of the light sensor (figure 3; see circuit diagram figure 4 showing the electrical pathways are separate), and projection of the second portion in the general plane includes a projection of the antenna in the general plane (figure 3 shows the positioning of the antenna and solar cell. They do not overlap), wherein the semiconductor wafer or layer extends, parallel to the general plane (figure 3), into the first portion and the second portion of said assembly (figure 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
369
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein all electrodes of the light sensor and the antenna are located below the semiconductor material wafer or layer (figure 3 the circuit board is shown below the wafers. Figure 4 shows the electrical diagram thereof; 271, 272.).
It is conceptually possible that semiconductor does not extend into both the first and second portions with at least part not having an electrode only in the prescribed region. Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the semiconductor region at least partially beyond the electrode region. The reason for doing so would have been to provide a simple manufacturing step and improved physical characteristics, such that the antenna could be added by removal of material, rather than complex formation of a complicated shape. Thus there would be no reason to apply the electrode to the inactive regions, but only the active regions, but the semiconductor would none the less remain in at least one portion lacking an electrode. This would improve structural performance and reduce manufacturing cost without deviating from the essential teaching and disclosure of Baba.
With regard to claim 2 Baba teaches the watch according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor material wafer or layer has no conductive doped areas in the second portion of said assembly (resin – abstract; claims 1, 5, paragraphs 5, 9, 35, 40).
With regard to claim 3 Baba teaches the watch according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor material wafer or layer extends throughout the first portion and the second portion of said assembly (figure 6).
With regard to claim 4 Baba teaches the watch according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor material wafer or layer extends throughout the visible portion of said assembly for a user observing said assembly through the crystal (figure 3).
With regard to claim 11 Baba teaches the watch according to claim 1, wherein said case is formed at least for the most part by one or more metallic materials (claim 9).
With regard to claim 22 Baba teaches the watch according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor material wafer or layer is opaque and homogeneous (50 figure 2. 50 is a solar cell which absorbs light and thus would not be regarded as transparent. Figures 1 and 3 the solar cell is depicted as having a homogenous appearance. See applicant’s specification regarding the use of the term “presents a homogeneous opaque appearance to an observer. Thus, the observer cannot distinguish the presence of the light sensor by the presence of a structured top layer, in particular transparent top electrodes, as in the prior art.” Paragraph 16, see also paragraphs 9, 17, 18 of specification 7/21/23).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2020/0401085) in view of Takeuchi (US 2019/0280141).
With regard to claim 5 (depends from claim 1) Baba teaches:
wherein an anti-reflective layer is deposited above this upper surface (paragraph 107).
Baba does not teach the claimed:wherein the semiconductor material wafer or layer is textured over its entire upper surface.
Takeuchi teaches using a texture to reduce reflection – paragraphs 100-101.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba such that the semiconductor material wafer or layer is textured over its entire upper surface, as taught by Takeuchi. The reason for doing so would have been to improve the power generation features of the solar element by reducing reflection as taught by Takeuchi.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2020/0401085) in view of Bailat (US 2022/0004149).
With regard to claim 6 Baba discloses the watch according to claim 1, wherein said assembly comprises a transparent, semi-transparent or translucent layer which is arranged above the semiconductor material wafer or layer, which forms an upper layer of the assembly and which darkens the colour of this assembly (The system is a solar cell with an antireflective layer. The element must be transparent to allow the light to reach the solar cell in order to be operable. Further the antireflective layer by the nature of being anti reflective must darken the color as it would by definition increase the absorption of light).
Baba does not teach the claimed:
giving it in particular an anthracite, midnight blue or near-black colour.
Bailat discloses a black colored photovoltaic device – title. See paragraph 74 and abstract.
The use of antireflective layers increase the amount of light absorbed. Using such coatings moves the color closer to black. The closer the color gets to black the more light is being absorbed and not reflected.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba such that a coating is used to giving it particular near-black colour, as taught by Bailat. The reason for doing so would have been to increase light absorption and improve solar element performance, as taught by Bailat.
With regard to claim 7 Baba and Bailat teach the watch according to claim 6, wherein the upper surface of the transparent, semi-transparent or translucent layer has a finish giving, at least in some areas, a matt, brushed, satin or glossy appearance to said assembly (an anti reflective layer in the black color regime would appear matt. Satin and glossy are the opposite concepts to antireflective.)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2020/0401085) in view of Kimura (US 3427797).
With regard to claim 8 (depends from claim 1) Baba does not teach the claimed: wherein said assembly itself forms a dial for the analog display, no cover plate of said assembly being provided between the assembly and the analog display.
Kimura teaches a solar cell 6 figure 6.
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba such that said assembly itself forms a dial for the analog display, no cover plate of said assembly being provided between the assembly and the analog display, as taught by Kimura. The reason for doing so would have been to increase the amount of light reaching the dial as taught by Kimura. The presence of an intervening layer would necessarily reduce the incident light on the solar cell. Another reason for doing so would have been to achieve a unique visual aesthetic as taught by Kimura. The visual appearance of the solar cell could increase marketability due to the solar nature of the power source.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2020/0401085) in view of Abe (US 2012/0105288) and Yamamoto (US 2020/0057413).
With regard to claim 9 (depends from claim 1) Baba teaches an antenna layer within the vertical layer of the solar cell – 59 figure 3. See also figures 5 and 6. It isn’t entirely clear whether this disclosure meets the claim limitations in question. Thus for the sake of completeness the feature is being treated as not disclosed. This is not to be treated as a statement diminishing that which is actually taught by Baba.
Baba does not disclose the claimed: wherein the antenna is supported by said assembly on a lower side of this assembly.
It is well known in the art to provide the antenna layer behind the solar layer. In example Abe teaches” a solar panel which is arranged on a top surface side of the antenna device and a circuit board which is arranged on a back surface side of the antenna device and electrically connected with an electrode formed at an outer circumference of the solar panel, and the outer circumference of the solar panel – abstract. Yamamoto teaches an antenna 3 deposited on a solar cell 5 on the lower side of the solar cell – figure 2, paragraph 149
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba such that the antenna is supported by said assembly on a lower side of this assembly, as taught by Abe and Yamamoto. The reason for doing so would have been to form the antenna in the normal and routine vertical layout common in the art, as taught by Abe. Another reason for doing so would have been to form the antenna in a region clear of adjoining parts and thus well suited to receiving the antenna portions in the layer. The backside would be away from other components or layers that might potentially interfere with its construction. In example the antenna could be delicately formed by deposition. This operation or structure could be complicated by the antireflective layer of the solar cell. By forming these two elements on opposing sides the manufacture methods could be simplified. This simplification could even be as simple as not needing to consider whether there would be any interference effects regardless of whether effects might exist or not. I.e. if one anti reflective coating doesn’t affect the antenna, future coating designs might. By originally forming the antenna in the back side then updating the coating would not require immediate evaluation of whether it interferes with the antenna element.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2020/0401085) in view of Abe (US 2012/0105288) and Yamamoto (US 2020/0057413) in further view of Puuri (US 2017/0179581).
While claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 it is treated herein as dependent on the modification of claim 9 to address the limitation “lower side”.
With regard to claim 10 (depends from claim 1) Baba does not teach the claimed: wherein the antenna is deposited, on a lower side of the semiconductor material wafer or layer, on a same layer as said at least one positive electrode and said at least one negative electrode.
Deposition of antennas is a well known formation method. See Puuri paragraph 65 – “However, while the use of LDS is exemplary, other implementations may be used to manufacture the coupled antenna apparatus such as via the use of a flexible printed circuit board (PCB), sheet metal, printed radiators, etc. as noted above. However, the various design considerations above may be chosen consistent with, for example, maintaining a desired small form factor and/or other design requirements and attributes. For example, in one variant, the printing-based methods and apparatus described in co-owned and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/782,993 and entitled “DEPOSITION ANTENNA APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed Mar. 1, 2013, which claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent application Ser. No. 61/606,320 filed Mar. 2, 2012, 61/609,868 filed Mar. 12, 2012, and 61/750,207 filed Jan. 8, 2013, each of the same title, and each of the foregoing incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, are used for deposition of the antenna radiator on the substrate. In one such variant, the antenna radiator includes a quarter-wave loop or wire-like structure printed onto the substrate using the printing process discussed therein.”
Before the earliest effective filing date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba such that the antenna is deposited, on a lower side of the semiconductor material wafer or layer, on a same layer as said at least one positive electrode and said at least one negative electrode, as taught by Puuri, Abe, and Yamamoto. The reason for doing so would have been to maintain a small form factor as well as to improve the antenna in terms of controllable shape(s) and reception qualities as taught by Puuri.
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 SEAN KAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-8931. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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.
/SEAN KAYES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights