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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0047207 to Aylaian.
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, and 7, Aylaian teaches a solar panel (Figs. 4) comprising
A substrate 112 (¶0056, 0057) having a first side (facing top of page) and a second side opposite to the first side
A first solar cell (a surface of exemplary first cell 102b is denoted by a dotted line in Marked-up Fig. 4B below) having a first orientation (facing down) disposed on the first side of the substrate
A second solar cell (surface of exemplary second cell 102a denoted by solid line in Marked-up Fig. 4B) having a second orientation (facing up) disposed on the first side of the substrate, wherein the second orientation is different from the first orientation
An electrical conductor connecting the first solar cell and the second solar cell (¶0053, 0056)
Wherein a gap is provided between the first solar cell and the second solar cell to allow light to travel through the gap between the first and second solar cells.
Per claim 3, Aylaian teaches the limitations of claim 1. An electrical lead is electrically connected to the first solar cell in an embodiment (Figs. 6, 8, ¶0044, 0060, 0062).
Per claim 4, Aylaian teaches the limitations of claim 1. The first solar cell is connected in series with the second solar cell in an embodiment (¶0016).
Per claim 5, Aylaian teaches the limitations of claim 1. The first solar cell is connected in parallel with the second solar cell in an embodiment (¶0016).
Per claim 7, Aylaian teaches the limitations of claim 1. The second orientation is rotated 180o from the first orientation.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
208
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over claim 1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0283115 to Fukawa.
Regarding claim 2, Aylaian teaches the limitations of claim 1. That reference also teaches that an electronic element is electrically connected to the first solar cell (Fig. 10, ¶0063), but does not specifically teach that the electronic element is a diode. Fukawa teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to connect the first solar cell to a diode in order to prevent backflow of electric current between cells (¶0099, 0102).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over claim 1 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Aylaian teaches the limitations of claim 1. The term “inverse reflection” is not specifically expounded upon in the instant disclosure. The identified first and second solar cells are rotated 180o to face other as in a mirror reflection. Whether this arrangement results in an inverse reflection depends on the degree of symmetry of the cells themselves. The illustration of an individual cell (Fig. 8) shows a symmetric cell. Regardless, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the first and second orientation so in order to align electrical leads for electrical connection and to assure an optimal distribution of light (¶0005, 0022, 0023, 0025, 0057, 0060). As such, the claimed relationship between the first and second orientations is an obvious result of optimization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 8 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.
Applicant notes that the examiner did not include analysis of claims 9-18, 21, and 22 in the previous office action. These claims belong to non-elected groups I and II (see Restriction Requirement mailed 1/28/2025). Therefore, since these groups were not elected, they were necessarily not examined. While some of them were generic to the identified species, they were not examined because they were not part of group I.
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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726