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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Application Status
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 July 2014 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 28 September 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claim 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “dark” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dark” 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. The specification mentions “black or dark-colored” but it is not clear what range beyond black is considered dark-colored/
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the carrier layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Carrier layer is first claimed in claim 3.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/194,195. The claims filed on 30 April 2025 were considered for analysis. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, the ‘195 application claims an interlayer comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) layer comprising luminescent solar concentrators which read on photovoltaic cells, and an optical layer in contact with the TPU layer. Claims 7 and 8 specify that the optical layer may include a metal foil or film. As the luminescent solar concentrators are in contact with the foil optical layer, this reads on being disposed on the foil layer as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, claim 14 of the ‘195 application further recites first and second rigid sheets with the interlayer disposed between them. The rigid sheets read on the claimed carrier layer.
Regarding claim 5, the TPU layer of claim 1 of the ‘195 application comprises polyurethane.
Regarding claim 6, claim 8 of the ‘195 application recites an aluminum foil layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldstein (U.S. Pub. 2015/0243446).
Regarding claim 1, Goldstein describes photovoltaic cells having a seal formed from thermoplastic polymers such as polyethylene with an aluminum foil laminate layer, see abstract and p. 4, [0051] and p. 8, [0145] and p. 9, [0160].
Regarding claim 6, Goldstein describes an aluminum foil layer, see p. 9, [0160].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimov (U.S. Pub. 2017/0218264).
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 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.
Regarding claim 2, Klimov teaches that the waveguide may be colored and tinted, see p. 11, [0110], and thus may comprise a dark colored polymeric material.
Regarding claim 3, Klimov teaches that the device may be disposed between two window panes, see p. 2, [0013]. The window pane reads on a carrier layer attached to the polymeric base layer.
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]
Claims 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 Ackermann (U.S. Pub. 2013/0306127).
Regarding claim 4, Klimov describes the seal of claim 1 as described above. 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.
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 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) as applied above, and further in view of Barr (U.S. Pub. 2019/0036480).
Regarding claim 10, Klimov is relied upon as described above to disclose the limitations of claim 1, including a top contact electrode (item 460 in FIG. 9) and an alloy layer (see p. 11, [0112]). 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 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 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.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
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