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 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
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, 3-12, 14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer (US 2023/0152008 A1) in view of Ionescu (US 11242258 B1) in view of Serhiiovych (US 75188C2).
Claims 1, 3-9, 14, 16-19:
Brewer teaches a method for treating lunar regolith with concentrated sunlight, that has been routed through an optical assembly, to cause heating, sintering, and/or phase change of the regolith (abstract). In particular, the phase change does include vaporization and the resulting gasses are collected by a gas collector 164 (Fig. 1) [0012].
Brewer does not explicitly teach this phase change is for purification (beneficiation) or collecting the vapor as a thin film on a substrate.
It is noted that lunar regolith has a known composition and does include silica and iron oxide.
Ionescu teaches a method for purifying silica (abstract). The starting material is any form of impure silica (mined, acquired, gathered, etc.) (11:34-67) and is purified by phase change including evaporating, sublimating, condensing, desublimating, etc. (15:40-42). This process can be repeated to further improve the purity and remove additional impurities until the desired level of purity is reached (15:17-60).
Serhiiovych teaches a method for refining materials by distillation in the space vacuum using solar energy (abstract). The material is evaporated and condensed onto condensing column 8 thereby forming a thin film. The refining occurs due to the different volatility of impurities relative to the main material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Brewer where the vaporization is for the purpose of purification, repeated as needed until the desired level of purity is reached, and the silica vapors are collected on a condensing column substrate thereby forming a thin film of silica. Ionescu teaches purifying silica by phase change and Serhiiovych teaches collecting purified vapor onto a condensing substrate.
Claims 10, 12, 20:
Serhiiovych teaches the refining process occurs in the vacuum of space (abstract). This includes the condensation column 8 being substantially colder than the vaporized material due to contact with the coldness of space (Fig. 1). The environment of the moon would have been obvious because the combination is dealing with lunar regolith specifically.
Claim 11:
Ionescu teaches an actuator for adjusting the concentrated sunlight position on the material [0067].
Claim(s) 2, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewer (US 2023/0152008 A1) in view of Ionescu (US 11242258 B1) in view of Serhiiovych (US 75188C2) in view of Lee (KR 20130021844 A) and Ottermann (US 2008/0030130 A1).
Previously discussed prior art does not teach the substrate is a photovoltaic cell or the deposited material is glass. However, Lee teaches a method for using sunlight as a heat source to performing PVD/CVD on a photovoltaic substrate 20. It is noted that transparent glass is one of the layers of a photovoltaic substrate (i.e., solar cell).
Additionally, Ottermann teaches a method for manufacturing photovoltaics [0084] that further include glass layers deposited thereon by vapor deposition [0013-0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of previously discussed prior art and deposit a transparent glass layer onto a photovoltaic substrate. Lee teaches PVD/CVD using sunlight on a photovoltaic substrate and Ottermann teaches glass as the vapor deposited layer. This is a suitable implementation for the manufacture of solar cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights