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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim 2 has been cancelled; Claims 1, 4, 8-9, and 11-12 have been amended; Claims 1 and 3-12 remains for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Previous Claim Objection/Rejections
Previous objection of Claims 1 and 4 because of the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 8/3/2026.
Previous objection of Claim 9 (not claim 5) because of the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 8/3/2026.
Previous objection of Claim 8 because of the informalities has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 8/3/2026.
Previous rejection of Claims 1 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo et al (US-PG-pub 2022/0228235 A1, updated as US 12,286,688 B2, thereafter PG’235) has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 8/3/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’235 in view of Brosseau et al (US-PG-pub 2013/0276284 A1, thereafter PG’284) has been withdrawn since this claim has been cancelled in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 8/3/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’235 in view of Shan et al (EP 3971993 A1, thereafter EP’993) has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 8/3/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’235 has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Argument/Remark with amendment” filed on 8/3/2026.
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 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (US-PG-pub 2022/0228235 A1, updated as US 12,286,688 B2, thereafter PG’235) in view of Brosseau et al (US-PG-pub 2013/0276284 A1, thereafter PG’284).
Regarding claim 1, PG’235 teaches a manufacturing method “for recycling silver present on a photovoltaic cell comprising: step a) of supplying a photovoltaic cell including a support substrate made of silicon, an upper layer of doped silicon arranged on the support substrate, a plurality of silver lines arranged on the upper layer, at least one anti-reflective layer arranged on the upper layer and adjacent to the silver lines; a step b) of etching the anti-reflective layer by immersing the photovoltaic cell in an acid solution; a step c) of etching the upper layer by immersing the photovoltaic cell without an anti-reflective layer in a basic solution, leading to the separation of the silver lines; a step d) of drying the assembly formed by the support substrate and the separated silver lines” (Abstract, Figs. an claims of PG’235) with water and aqueous solution and ultrasonic (par.[0019]-[0024] of PG’235), which reads on all of the essential process steps as claimed in the instant claim, PG’235 provides example applying ultrasonic during the process (par.[0021] of PG’235). PG’235 does not specify adding organic acid as claimed in the instant claim. PG’284 teaches a process for recycling printed wire boards using environmentally-friendly compositions, wherein electronic components, precious metals and base metals may be collected for reuse and recycling (Abstract of PG’284). PG’284 teaches including organic acid including citric acid, acetic acid, maleic acid, in the complexing agent (par.[0066] of PG’284). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply proper organic acid or organic complexing agent from the disclosure of PG’284 in the process of PG’235 in order to recover precious metals (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’284).
Regarding claim 8, PG’248 specify that oxidizing agent constituent is diluted and present in a weight percent of about 1 wt% to about 50 wt% (par.[0066] of PG’248), which is within the claimed concentration range as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, PG’235 provides example applying ultrasonic during the process with a frequency 40kHz-100kHz (par.[0021] of PG’235), which reads on the claimed frequency of the ultrasonic as claimed in the instant claim. PG’284 further teaches the vibration process for the aqueous solution (par.[0122] of PG’284).
Regarding claim 10, PG’235 teaches the cell is immersed in bath and applying ultrasound to improve the efficiency of the etching of the anti-reflective layer 4 and promote the separation of the rear contact layer 7. Ultrasound may also initiate local separation of the silver lines 3. (par.[0056]-[0057] of PG’235), which reads on the claimed limitation as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, PG’235 does not specify the claimed ultrasound power as claimed in the instant claim. however, adjusting ultrasound power during metal recycling process is a well-known technique as demonstrated by PG’284. PG’284 teaches a process for recycling printed wire boards using environmentally-friendly compositions, wherein electronic components, precious metals and base metals may be collected for reuse and recycling (Abstract of PG’284). PG’284 teaches that:“ an ultrasonic bath with vibrating bottom and/or ultrasonic transducers mounted on the walls can be used to provide equal intensity of ultrasound in the volume of composition (e.g., a Sonochemical Reaction Vessel SRV-160 by Advanced Sonics, LLC; SRV-160 is a 5-gallon US bath driven by 2000 W of ultrasonic power at 20 kHz)”. (par.[0052] of PG’284), 1 gallon is about 3.785 liters — noted by the Examiner), which reads on the claimed ultrasound power per liter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose proper ultrasound power per liter from the disclosure of PG’284 in the process of PG’235 in order to recover precious metals (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’284). PG’284 further teaches the vibration process for the aqueous solution (par.[0122] of PG’284).
Regarding claim 12, PG’235 teaches that the etching of step c) is carried out at a temperature of about 50°C or is carried out at a temperature of between 20°C. and 100°C (cl.17-18 of PG’235), which overlaps the claimed temperature range. Overlapping in temperature-range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the temperature range as claim from the disclosure of PG’235 since PG’235 teaches the same manufacturing method for recycling silver present on a photovoltaic cell as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’235 in view of PG’284 and further in view of Shan et al (EP 3971993 A1, thereafter EP’993).
Regarding claim 3, PG’235 teaches a manufacturing method for recycling silver and aluminum layer present on a photovoltaic cell (Abstract, Fig.1-2, and par.[0048]-[0049] of PG’235). PG’235 in view of PG’284 does not specify aluminum paste and silver line on the Al paste as claimed in the instant claim. EP’993 teaches a manufacturing method for the back-side structure of a double-sided P-type solar cell (abstract Figs., and examples of EP’993). EP’993 teaches a large amount of aluminum paste and silver aluminum paste are used on the back-side to make grid lines in reducing the production cost of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells. (par.[0002] of EP’993). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to including aluminum paste and silver line on the Al paste in the process of PG’235 since both PG’235 and EP’993 teach the Si and Al lines for the photovoltaic cell.
Regarding claim 4, PG’235 teaches extracting silver line in solid state (Abstract, claim, and par.[0018] of PG’235) and also including aluminum residual in solution (par.[0055] and [0122] of PG’235) and PG’284 teaches the separating process in the aqueous solution (par.[0122] of PG’284).
Regarding claim 5, PG’235 teaches that the aluminum residues, in the form of a film in suspension, are removed during rinsing (par.[0055] of PG’235), which reads on the Al separating by flotation as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, PG’235 teaches applying NaOH solution in the recycling process (par.[0059] of PG’235).
Regarding claim 7, PG’235 teaches that extracting silver from solar modules and recycling it are based on a hydro-metallurgical process is a well-known technique (par.[0004] of PG’235).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1 and 3-12 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated above. Regarding the amended features as claimed in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been stated above.
The Applicant’s arguments are summarized as following:
Fundamental Incompatibility of Technical Domains and Substrates. Brosseau et al (PG’284) is strictly directed to a process for recycling Printed Wire Boards (PWBs). In contrast, photovoltaic solar cells comprise crystalline silicon wafers with anti-reflective coatings and screen-printed metallization.
Divergent Chemical Mechanisms and Purpose. Luo et al (PG’235) relies on the sequential chemical removal of the anti-reflective coating and the doped silicon layer in order to release the silver lines. Luo et al (PG’235) intentionally etches and consumes the silicon, lower, and intermediate layers, resulting in a considerable loss of silicon and aluminum during processing (see Luo at paragraphs [0016] and [0031]-[0032]).
Lack of Technical Guidance / Millions of Combinations. Even if a POSITA had considered Brosseau-which is not supported by the prior art except through hindsight-Brosseau fails to provide the technical clues or guidance necessary to arrive at the claimed invention since Brosseau et al (PG’284) discloses several dozen oxidizing agents (see Brosseau at paragraph [0064]), several dozen complexing agents (paragraph [0066]), several dozen passivating agents (paragraph [0067]), and several dozen solvents (paragraph [0068]), and explicitly states that its compositions can variously and alternatively comprise, consist of, or consist essentially of any combination of ingredients consistent with the disclosure (paragraph [0079]). Consequently, using simple combinatorial calculations, Brosseau encompasses at least several million possible chemical compositions.
In response,
Regarding the argument 1), Brosseau et al (PG’284) does not exclude the application for the application for recovering photovoltaic solar cells.
Regarding the argument 2), as pointed out in the rejection for the instant claims above. Luo et al (PG’235) teaches all of the essential process steps as claimed in the instant claim 1. It is noted that there is no limitation in the instant claims to avoid the loss of silicon and aluminum during processing as argued.
Regarding the argument 3), Firstly, Luo et al (PG’235) in view of Brosseau et al (PG’284) teaches all of the essential process steps as claimed as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply proper organic acid or organic complexing agent from the disclosure of PG’284 in the process of PG’235 in order to recover precious metals (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’284). Secondly, it is noted that the Applicant’s arguments are against the combined prior arts individually, one should not show non-obviousness 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). In the instant case, , Luo et al (PG’235) in view of Brosseau et al (PG’284) is applied to the instant claims 1 and 8-12; and Shan et al (EP’993) is further combined for the instant claims 3-7. The reason and motivation for the combination can further refer to the rejection for in the office action above.
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 JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
