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, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meyers (US 20130146125 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Meyers discloses a system, comprising (see Figs. 1 and 2 [0015][0041]-[0053]):
a plurality of photovoltaic shingles (100 [0046]) installed on a roof deck ([0015]), wherein each of the photovoltaic shingles includes a photovoltaic layer (102 [0046]), wherein the photovoltaic layer includes at least one solar cell (102), and at least one electrical conductor (bus bar [0048] and/or 112 [0052]), wherein the at least one electrical conductor (bus bar [0048] and/or 112 [0052]) is electrically connected to the at least one solar cell (102), wherein a first end (either end of bus bar or 112 [0052]) of the at least one electrical conductor (bus bar [0048] and/or 112 [0052]) extends from a first end (left and/or right side) of the photovoltaic layer (102);
an encapsulant (an encapsulant layer positioned between one or both sheets 104, 106 and photovoltaic cells 102 [0049]) encapsulating the at least one solar cell; and a backsheet (108 [0051]) below the encapsulant ([0049]),
wherein the backsheet (108 [0051]) includes the first end (left side), and a second end (right side) opposite the first end of the backsheet, and a side lap (204 [0053]) at the first end (left side) of the backsheet, and wherein the first end (either end of bus bar or 112 [0052]) of the at least one electrical conductor (bus bar [0048] and/or 112 [0052]) is between the first and second ends of the backsheet (108), and wherein the first end (see Fig. 2) of the at least one electrical conductor is located above the side lap (204).
Regarding claim 20, Meyers discloses a photovoltaic shingle (100 [0046], see Figs. 1 and 2 [0015][0041]-[0053]), comprising:
a photovoltaic layer (102 [0046]), wherein the photovoltaic layer (102 [0046]) includes at least one solar cell (102 [0046]), and
at least one electrical conductor (bus bar [0048] and/or 112 [0052]) ,
wherein the at least one electrical conductor (bus bar [0048] and/or 112 [0052]) is electrically connected to the at least one solar cell (102 [0046]), wherein a first end (either end of bus bar or 112 [0052]) of the at least one electrical conductor (bus bar [0048] and/or 112 [0052]) extends from a first end (either end of 102) of the photovoltaic layer (102);
an encapsulant (an encapsulant layer positioned between one or both sheets 104, 106 and photovoltaic cells 102 [0049]) encapsulating the at least one solar cell (102); and
a backsheet (108 [0051]) below the encapsulant ([0049]),
wherein the backsheet (102) includes a first end (left side) and a second end (right side) opposite the first end of the backsheet, and a side lap (204, [0053]) at the first end (left side) of the backsheet, and wherein the first end (either end of bus bar or 112 [0052]) of the at least one electrical conductor is between the first end of the backsheet and the second end of the backsheet, and wherein the first end (either end of bus bar or 112 [0052]) of the at least one electrical conductor is located above the side lap (204, [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Meyers discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Meyers discloses wherein the backsheet is composed of a polymer ([0051]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 7, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20130146125 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Meyers discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Meyers discloses wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic shingles includes a first layer (106), wherein the first layer (106) is between the encapsulant and the backsheet.
Meyers discloses that the first layer can be formed of glass (106 [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first layer of Meyer to be formed of glass as disclosed by Meyer because Meyer discloses it is appropriate to do so.
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Meyers discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Meyers discloses wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic shingles includes a frontsheet (104 [0049]).
Meyers discloses that the frontsheet can includes a multilaminate containing a glass layer and a polymer layer which can include ETFE ([0049]). The polymer ETFE sheet of Meyers is part of the multilaminate and will have a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the second surface is attached to the second glass layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the frontsheet of Meyers to have the claimed structure as disclosed by Meyers because Meyer discloses it is appropriate to do so.
Regarding claim 19, Meyers discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Meyers discloses that the sheets (104 and 106) the glass sheets have a thickness ranging from 0.127mm-2.54mm ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meyers (US 20130146125 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 10, 19, and 20 above and in further view of Nazif (US 2021/0359150 A1).
Regarding claims 11-14, Meyers discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Meyers discloses that any type of solar cell and/or architecture can be used ([00046]) including multijunction solar cells, however, does not disclose wherein the at least one solar cell is two conductor tandem cell or a four conductor tandem cell.
Nazif discloses a tandem solar cell configuration where there are either two terminal connections or four terminal connections (Abstract, Fig. 1/2 or Fig. 3/4 [0016]-[0033]) and Nazif further discloses that these type of solar cells have high optical absorption ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the solar cells of Meyers by using the tandem solar cells of modified Nazif with two or four terminal connections because Nazif discloses that these type of solar cells have high optical absorption and Meyers discloses that a multijunction type of solar cell and/or architecture can be used.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20130146125 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 10, 19, and 20 above and in further view of Abra (US 2021/0320615 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Meyer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Meyer does not disclose that the backsheet is formed of a thermoplastic polyolefin or asphalt materials and instead discloses plastic materials ([0051]).
Abra discloses that a solar tile can be formed of asphalt, plastic like PVC, or thermoplastic olefin (see Fig. 4A, 412, [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the asphalt material which forms the backsheet of the solar tile of Meyer with the TPO material or the asphalt material of Abra because Abra discloses it is an appropriate material for a tile which is used as a solar tile.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers (US 20130146125 A1) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 10, 19, and 20 above and in further view of Stancel (US 2008/0302030 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Meyer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Meyer discloses that different mechanisms of attachment can be used to attach wherein the backsheet to the first glass layer ([0051]).
However, Meyer does not disclose that the attachment is done by an adhesive layer.
Stancel discloses that an adhesive may be used to glue a photovoltaic module to a tile ([0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the interface between the photovoltaic module and tile of Meyer by including an adhesive layer as disclosed by Stancel because it is a well-known method to attach a module and tile.
This will result in a first adhesive layer between the backsheet and first glass layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726