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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-2, and 5 appear to be reproduced images where some may be in color (dye profiles in figure 2; see MPEP 6-24-01) and some are screen images. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2008/0264486 to Chen et al.
Chen discloses in the abstract and figures 3, and 8-11, an encapsulant for a solar cell comprising:
a film having a first side and an opposing second side (top and bottom surfaces in figure 11);
at least one optical structure (71; figure 11) formed in the film, the at least one optical structure comprising at least a first waveguide array positioned between the first and second sides, wherein each waveguide in the at least one first waveguide array is commonly oriented at a first angle (“lambda-shaped waveguides; figure 11) relative to a normal of a surface of the film and in which each waveguide of the first waveguide array is formed by a core of a high-refractive index polymer and a cladding of a low refractive index polymer (paragraph 51 discloses the use of polymer waveguides); and
at least one light conversion material disposed in the core of each waveguide, in which the at least one light conversion material comprises an organic or inorganic fluorescent dye is capable of downconverting UV portions of light entering the film into visible light (paragraph 103 discloses dyes and paragraph 105 discloses configuring for a visible spectrum).
Examiner further notes that *no* (emphasis added) angle range is claimed. Therefore, a simple straight waveguide would overcome this claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner will advance prosecution by interpreting an angle greater than zero with respect to normal. A claim amendment to clarify this angle should be made.
As to claims 3, and 10, the two claimed waveguide arrays are not required to intersect one another and therefore separate units such as shown in Figure 8 would have an additional array of waveguide structures. Since each array has the lambda-shaped profile with “zig-zagging” angles, there would be multiple secondary angles. Claim 10 is an independent claim which incorporates the second waveguide recited in claim 3.
As to claim 4, the opposing lambda-shaped waveguide is opposite a first angle in a “zig-zagged” pattern such as in figure 11.
As to claims 5, 9 and 16, nanoparticles in the cores are disclosed in paragraph 79.
Claim 11 repeats the recitation of the last portion of independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Chen discloses the invention as claimed except for an angle range of about -30 to 30 degrees. Chen does discloses that an angle range should be obtuse and greater than 90 degrees for adjacent waveguides (paragraph 68). Figure 11 appears to show angles roughly in the range of 30 degrees but this is not explicitly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the angles of Chen’s waveguides to optimize output.
Claim(s) 2, 6-7, 12-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of US 11,611,308 to Davy.
Chen discloses a solar concentrator encapsulant as claimed except for the use of certain materials such as acrylates in claim 2, ratios of material mixes in claim 6 and lanthanide-doped yttrium oxides in claims 7 and 19. Independent claim 17 recites the above disclosed structure but includes the acrylate material in independent form. Previously disclosed dyes and nanoparticles above are disclosed respectively in dependent claims 18 and 20.
Davy discloses such acrylates in column 4, lines 1-16 to control the amount of transmission in a luminescent concentrator. Other materials are commonly used in the solar art and mixing such materials would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the materials as taught by Davy and alter their material composition in Chen to adjust the luminosity of the panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0235126 to DiDomenico (shaped fluid waveguide channels).
US 20190316854 (nanoparticles).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874