RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
Application Status
Amendments to claims 1 and 3-17, filed on 07 April 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 18-20 have been added and claim 2 has been cancelled by applicant. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The provisional double patenting rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 over copending application no. 19/194,195, made of record on page 4, paragraph 8 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment such that the claims are no longer coextensive in scope.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 6 over Klimov (U.S. Pub. 2017/0218264), made of record on page 7, paragraph 13 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07 April 2026. In particular, Klimov does not specify the haze value of the window panes.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 4, 7, 8, and 9 as over Klimov in view of Ackermann (U.S. Pub. 2013/0306127), made of record on page 8, paragraph 14 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 has been withdrawn. Ackermann does not remedy the above-described deficiency of Klimov.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10-17 as over Klimov in view of Barr (U.S. Pub. 2019/0036480), made of record on page 9, paragraph 15 of the office action mailed 07 January 2026 has been withdrawn. Barr does not remedy the above-described deficiency of Klimov.
NEW AND REPEATED REJECTIONS
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5, 6, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimov (U.S. Pub. 2017/0218264) in view of Agarwal (U.S. Pub. 2019/0145161).
Regarding claim 1, Klimov discloses a device that includes a photovoltaic cell and other components which is disposed between two window panes, see p. 2, [0013]. The substrates of the window may be glass, see p. 5, [0065] and p. 8, [0085]. The device thus acts as a seal for the window panes. Fig. 7 depicts the device 200 comprising a waveguide 210 comprising a polymer matrix with photovoltaic cells 220, 230, 240, and 250 attached thereto. The device includes photovoltaic cells having a polymeric base layer, see p. 11, [0112] and element 410 of FIG. 9. Adjacent layer 420 can be a metal layer, see id.
The plurality of photovoltaic cells are thus disposed on a metal foil layer and adjacent to a polymeric base layer as claimed.
It would have been obvious to have selected a polymeric base material as this is one of the specified suitable substrate materials.
While Klimov teaches glass window panes (see p. 2, [0013]), and teaches that the composition is substantially transparent (see p. 1, [0006]) Klimov does not specify that the laminate has the haze and visible light transmission properties as claimed.
Agarwal discloses integrated window structures comprising opposing substrates that sandwich an electrochromic coating. See abstract and p. 1, [0004]. The window substrates are transparent materials such as glass or polycarbonate, see p. 7, [0068]. Total device haze of less than 2% is desired, see p. 7, [0066]. See also p. 12, [0096] and p. 15, [0110]. Agarwal defines transparency to mean greater than 75% transmission at 550 nm, see p. 12, [0096]. Sandwiched by the two substrates may be photovoltaic units, see p. 2, [0027].
Klimov and Agarwal are analogous as they are capable of being used together, as Klimov describes photovoltaic materials used between glass substrates while Agarwal describes window structures of glass or polycarbonate that include photovoltaic units inside of the structure.
It would have been obvious to have used the photovoltaic structure of Klimov with glass or polycarbonate window panes having low haze and high transparency to arrive at the claimed invention, as this provides for high transmittance of light to the photovoltaic device for its function as well as providing visual sight through the window (see FIG. 1 of Agarwal).
Regarding claim 5, Klimov teaches that polyurethane is a suitable material for the base layer, see p. 11, [0112] describing polymers and p. 2, [0016] and claim 79 describing polyurethane as the polymer matrix material.
Regarding claim 6, Klimov teaches that the metal of the bottom contact layer 420 may be aluminum metal, see p. 11, [0112].
Regarding claim 18, Klimov discloses core/shell quantum dot nanocrystals in the form of a dispersion within a monomer, see p. 2, [0015] and p. 6, [0073-0074].
Regarding claim 20, Klimov teaches that silicon is a suitable material for the photovoltaic cells, seep. 11, [0111] and [0112] and p. 16, [0156].
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimov (U.S. Pub. 2017/0218264) in view of Agarwal (U.S. Pub. 2019/0145161) in further view of Ackermann (U.S. Pub. 2013/0306127).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Klimov and Agarwal are relied upon as described above to describe the laminate of claim 1. Klimov does not specify a carrier layer which is embossed.
However, Ackermann describes laminated solar concentration devices (see p. 1, [0001]) and teaches a carrier layer which is embossed, see carrier layer 3 of FIG. 2 and description of Example 1 at p. 10, [0164].
Klimov and Ackermann are analogous because they each describe photovoltaics and luminescent solar concentration devices, thus they are suitable to be used together with the window structure of Agwarwal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an embossed carrier layer for the photovoltaic device of modified Klimov as taught by Ackermann to provide a pattern that has sharpness and thereby ensure that a laminate provides a lens, see Ackermann at p. 10, [0164].
Regarding claims 7-9, Klimov describes the seal of claim 1 as described above, including that the foil layer (layer 420 in FIG. 9) includes a first side and second side (the top and bottom sides as shown). However, Klimov does not specify an adhesive coating on at least one side of the foil layer as claimed.
Ackermann teaches an adhesive coating (layer 4 of FIG. 1) on at least one side of a UV-protecting foil layer 5. See description at p. 9, [0155]. The adhesive is transparent to ensure that optical properties are retained, see p. 8, [0138]. A suitable adhesive is a melt adhesive such as 2K-PU adhesive which is a thermoplastic polyurethane adhesive, see p. 9, [0148-0149].
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimov (U.S. Pub. 2017/0218264) in view of Agarwal (U.S. Pub. 2019/0145161) as applied above, and further in view of Barr (U.S. Pub. 2019/0036480).
Regarding claim 10, Klimov and Agwarwal are relied upon as described above to disclose the limitations of claim 1, including a top contact electrode (item 460 in FIG. 9 of Klimov) and an alloy layer (see p. 11, [0112] of Klimov). However, Klimov does not specify a second electrode as claimed.
Barr describes window-integrated transparent photovoltaic modules, see title and abstract. The modules include a first and second transparent electrode layer, see p. 1, [0005].
Klimov and Barr and Agwarwal are analogous because they each disclose window-integrated photovoltaic modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a second electrode as disclosed in Barr to the device of modified Klimov in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as this provides additional electrodes which ensures that the device directs electricity through the electrodes, see Barr at p. 1, [0005].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Klimov teaches an alloy layer which includes indium and sulfur (In2S3), see paragraph [0112]. Gallium is also disclosed (GaAs).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, Klimov teaches an alloy layer which includes indium and selenium (In2Se3), see paragraph [0112]. Zinc selenide (ZnSe) is also disclosed.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Klimov discloses that the alloy layer may be printed on the foil layer, see p. 9, [0096]. The printing can be performed onto a substrate which implies being printed after the first electrode is formed. Furthermore, the sequence of when the alloy layer is printed is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Klimov describes printing of the alloy layer.
Regarding claim 16, Klimov discloses aluminum metal at p. 9, [0096].
Regarding claim 17, Barr discloses transparent electrode layer, see p. 1, [0005] for the photovoltaic module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of the reasons for allowance:
The base claim is claim 19.
The present claims are deemed allowable over the references since the references do not disclose or render obvious a quantum dot having a copper iodine sulfide (CuIS) core and a zinc sulfur (ZnS) shell in combination with laminate comprising transparent panes and photovoltaic cells disposed at a seal.
While Klimov (U.S. Pub. 2017/0218264) discloses many materials suitable for quantum dot cores and shells, including ZnS as the shell material, see p. 7, [0077-0078], Klimov does not teach or suggest CuIS as a core material. The broadest disclosure of Klimov teaches using “MX” as the core in which M is a metal that may be copper and X may be a nonmetal such as sulfur, or M1M2X in which both M1 and M2 are metals or M1X1X2 or other similar configurations with multiple M and X units (see p. 6-7, [0076]) Klimov does not teach or suggest the use of iodine in the core.
KR 2015-0034381 A mentions CuIS2 in quantum rods which emit light, see paragraph [0004], but does not teach or suggest core/shell quantum dots comprising a CuIS core and ZnS shell and also does not teach the use of quantum light emitting rods in a window laminate structure.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 07 April 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections of the claims of record have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Prior Art of Record
CA 3,131,439 A1 also describes the use of quantum dots structures in power generating building materials.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-18 and 20 are rejected. Claim 19 is objected to.
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 extension fee 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 Scott R. Walshon whose telephone number is (571)270-5592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9am - 6pm.
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 on (571) 272-1234. 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.
/Scott R. Walshon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights