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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okabe et al. (US 2013/0333758 A1) with evidence provided by Ye et al. (CN 102681175 A) (refer to translation as provided).
Regarding claim 1, Okabe discloses a vehicle roof panel (thin film solar cell 14 as shown in figure 2 that can be disposed on desired location, [0497], such as roof of an automobile, [0512]) comprising:
a multilayer laminate having a shield layer (back sheet 10), a solar cell laminate (solar cell element 6 that comprises a photoelectric conversion element 107 of figure 1, [0323], which is a laminate of various layers as shown in fig. 1), and an electrochromic layer (getter film 4 that is made of alkali earth metal oxide, [0412], that is known as electrochromic material as evidenced by Ye, [0011]);
at least one electrical connection electronically connected to said solar cell laminate (the terminals as shown in fig. 1 that collects current, or the electrical connection between the solar cell elements 6 as disclosed in [0461]); and
wherein said solar cell laminate (6) is located between said shield layer (10) and said electrochromic layer (4) in said multilayer laminate (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Okabe further discloses that a protective coating (gas barrier film 3, [0356-0405]) on said electrochromic layer (4) (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Okabe further discloses that said protective coating comprises acrylic ([0376]).
Regarding claim 4, Okabe further discloses that said shield layer (10) comprises a polycarbonate ([0471]).
Regarding claim 7, Okabe further discloses that a transparent adhesive layer (seal material 7 made of EVA, [0425], which is known as transparent adhesive) between said shield layer (10) and said solar cell laminate (6) (fig. 2, [0324] and [0419-0457] and [0463]) and a transparent adhesive layer (seal material 5 made of EVA, [0425], which is known as transparent adhesive) between said solar cell laminate (6) and said electrochromic layer (4) (fig. 2, [0324] and [0419-0457]) .
Regarding claim 9, Okabe further discloses that said solar cell laminate has a thickness of 2000 µm or 2 mm ([0495]), which is within the claimed range of 1.5-2.5 millimeters.
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.
Claims 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe as applied above.
Regarding claim 6, Okabe further discloses that said solar cell laminate has a high absorption at 650 to 700 nm (see figures 4 and 5, [0586]) and very nominal absorbance at 450-650 nm (see figures 4 and 5, [0586]). Although Okabe does not explicitly disclose the transparency of at least 70% (or the absorbance being 30% or less) to visible light in a range of 450 nanometers to 650 nanometers, Okabe explicitly discloses it is desired to have low absorbance to visible light in a range of 450 nanometers to 650 nanometers (see figures 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have chosen the appropriate semiconductor material such that the solar cell laminate has low absorption, and thus high transparency, to visible light in a range of 450 nanometers to 650 nanometers.
Regarding claim 8, Okabe further discloses that said shield layer has a thickness of at least 12 µm ([0479]). Thus, claimed range (1 to 2 millimeters) overlaps with the disclosed range (at least 12 micron). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Regarding claim 10, Okabe further discloses that said electrochromic layer has a thickness of at least 5 µm ([0419]). Thus, claimed range (1 to 2 millimeters) overlaps with the disclosed range (at least 5 micron). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Claims 5, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe as applied above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 10,809,588 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Okabe does not disclose the solar cell being a Schottky-barrier solar cell.
Yu discloses a Schottky-barrier solar cell coupled to an electrochromic cell (see fig. 6) that can be installed on vehicle (3:31-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the Schottky-barrier solar cell as taught by Okabe to form the solar cell of Okabe to power the electrochemical cell/layer, as shown by Yu and also desired by Okabe.
Regarding claim 6, Okabe further discloses that said solar cell laminate has a high absorption at 650 to 700 nm (see figures 4 and 5, [0586]) and very nominal absorbance at 450-650 nm (see figures 4 and 5, [0586]). However, Okabe does not explicitly disclose the transparency of at least 70% to visible light in a range of 450 nanometers to 650 nanometers.
Yu discloses a Schottky-barrier solar cell coupled to an electrochromic cell (see fig. 6) that can be installed on vehicle (3:31-41). Yu further discloses that the solar cell is transparent to visible light or absorbs less than 20% of the visible light (claim 1), and thus has a transparency of at least 80% to visible light in a range of 450 nanometers to 650 nanometers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the Schottky-barrier solar cell as taught by Okabe to form the solar cell of Okabe such that it has low absorbance at visible light, as shown by Yu and also desired by Okabe (figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 11, Okabe does not explicitly disclose a user controllable electrical input coupled to the electrochromic layer and by which a variable electrical input can be provided to the electrochromic layer.
Yu discloses a Schottky-barrier solar cell coupled to an electrochromic cell (see fig. 6) that can be installed on vehicle (3:31-41). Yu further discloses a user controllable electrical input coupled to the electrochromic layer and by which a variable electrical input can be provided to the electrochromic layer (see fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the electrical connection between solar cell and the electrochromic layer as taught by Yu in the device of Okabe such that the current can be provided to the electrochromic cell, as shown by Yu.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe et al. (US 2013/0333758 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 10,809,588 B2). Supporting evidence is provided by Ye et al. (CN 102681175 A) (refer to translation as provided).
Regarding claim 12, Okabe discloses a vehicle roof panel (thin film solar cell 14 as shown in figure 2 that can be disposed on desired location, [0497], such as roof of an automobile, [0512]) comprising:
a multilayer laminate having a shield layer (back sheet 10), a plurality of a solar cell laminate layers (plurality of solar cell elements 6 each of which comprises a photoelectric conversion element 107 of figure 1, [0323], that is a laminate of various layers as shown in fig. 1), and an electrochromic layer (getter film 4 that is made of alkali earth metal oxide, [0412], that is known as electrochromic material as evidenced by Ye, [0011]);
at least one electrical connection electronically connected to said plurality of solar cell laminate (the electrical connection between the solar cell elements 6 as disclosed in [0461]); and
wherein said plurality of solar cell laminates (6) are located between said shield layer (10) and said electrochromic layer (4) in said multilayer laminate (see fig. 2).
Electrochromic layer (getter film 4) is known to have a transparency that varies as a function of electrical power applied to the electrochromic layer.
However, Okabe does not disclose that at least one electrical connection electrically connected to said electrochromic layer to provide electrical power to said electrochromic layer.
Yu discloses a Schottky-barrier solar cell coupled to an electrochromic cell (see fig. 6) that can be installed on vehicle (3:31-41). Yu further discloses at least one electrical connection electrically connected to said electrochromic layer to provide electrical power to said electrochromic layer (see fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the electrical connection between solar cell and the electrochromic layer as taught by Yu in the device of Okabe such that the current can be provided to the electrochromic cell, as shown by Yu.
Okabe further discloses that said solar cell laminate has a high absorption at 650 to 700 nm (see figures 4 and 5, [0586]) and very nominal absorbance at 450-650 nm (see figures 4 and 5, [0586]). Although Okabe does not explicitly disclose the transparency of at least 70% (or the absorbance being 30% or less) to visible light in a range of 450 nanometers to 650 nanometers, Okabe explicitly discloses it is desired to have low absorbance to visible light in a range of 450 nanometers to 650 nanometers (see figures 4 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have chosen the appropriate semiconductor material such that the solar cell laminate has low absorption, and thus high transparency, to visible light in a range of 450 nanometers to 650 nanometers.
Alternatively, Yu discloses a Schottky-barrier solar cell coupled to an electrochromic cell (see fig. 6) that can be installed on vehicle (3:31-41). Yu further discloses that the solar cell is transparent to visible light or absorbs less than 20% of the visible light (claim 1), and thus has a transparency of at least 80% to visible light in a range of 450 nanometers to 650 nanometers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the Schottky-barrier solar cell as taught by Okabe to form the solar cell of Okabe such that it has low absorbance at visible light, as shown by Yu and also desired by Okabe (figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 13, Okabe further discloses that a protective coating (gas barrier film 3, [0356-0405]) on said electrochromic layer (4) (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Okabe further discloses that said protective coating comprises acrylic ([0376]).
Regarding claim 15, Okabe further discloses that said shield layer (10) comprises a polycarbonate ([0471]).
Regarding claim 16, Okabe does not disclose the solar cell being a Schottky-barrier solar cell.
Yu discloses a Schottky-barrier solar cell coupled to an electrochromic cell (see fig. 6) that can be installed on vehicle (3:31-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the Schottky-barrier solar cell as taught by Okabe to form the solar cell of Okabe to power the electrochemical cell/layer, as shown by Yu and also desired by Okabe.
Regarding claim 17, Okabe further discloses that a transparent adhesive layer (seal material 7 made of EVA, [0425], which is known as transparent adhesive) between said shield layer (10) and one of said plurality of solar cell laminate layers (6) (fig. 2, [0324] and [0419-0457] and [0463]), a transparent adhesive layer between each of said plurality of solar cell laminate layers (seal material 5/7 is present between solar cells 6, fig. 2) and a transparent adhesive layer (seal material 5 made of EVA, [0425], which is known as transparent adhesive) between one of said plurality of solar cell laminate layers (6) and said electrochromic layer (4) (fig. 2, [0324] and [0419-0457]).
Regarding claim 19, Okabe further discloses that each of said plurality of solar cell laminate layers has a thickness of 2000 µm or 2 mm ([0495]), which is within the claimed range of 1.5-2.5 millimeters.
Regarding claim 18, Okabe further discloses that said shield layer has a thickness of at least 12 µm ([0479]). Thus, claimed range (1 to 2 millimeters) overlaps with the disclosed range (at least 12 micron). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Regarding claim 20, Okabe further discloses that said electrochromic layer has a thickness of at least 5 µm ([0419]). Thus, claimed range (1 to 2 millimeters) overlaps with the disclosed range (at least 5 micron). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights