DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The status identifier, “(currently amended)” in claim 47 should be corrected as to “(Withdrawn – currently amended)”.
The status identifier, “(Original)” in claims 48-56, respectively, should be corrected as to “(Withdrawn)”.
Remarks
Claims 1-35 are cancelled.
Claims 36-37, and 43 are amended.
Claims 47-59 are withdrawn (The election/restrictions have been FINAL in the previous Office Action issued on 07/29/2025).
Claims 36-56 are pending.
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:
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.
Claims 36-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARALIS (US 20180131311 A1) in view of YABLONOVITCH (US 20170025984 A1).
Regarding claim 36, KARALIS teaches a photovoltaic system (see the thermophotovoltaic converter with a heat source in Fig. 20A) comprising:
a radiation product source that is radioactive (KARALIS discloses the micro-burner 2010 as a radiation product source, and discloses the TPV converter can receive heat from a varying but uncontrollable source, wherein the varying and uncontrollable heat source can be absorbed solar illumination or a radio-isotope [0263]. YABLONOVITCH discloses a thermophotovoltaic (TPV) system, wherein suitable mechanisms for heating the emitter include, combustion, solar heat, and nuclear or radioactive heat [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the a radioactive heat for the radiation product source in KARALIS as taught by YABLONOVITCH, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).);
a conversion material configured to convert one or more types of radiation products emitted by the radiation product source to light (see the emitter, which emits hot photons across vacuum gaps 2020 for absorption by PV cells 2030, see [0267] of KARALIS; The emitter converts heat energy from the radioactive heat to hot photons); and
a plurality of photovoltaic cells (see the top and bottom PV cells 2030);
wherein wavelengths of the light are approximately all within a bandgap wavelength range ([0197] of KARALIS, where the bandgaps of the emitter and absorber semiconductors are matched; It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the semiconductor material for the photovoltaic cells of which bandgap is matched with the bandgap of the emitter, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144); Therefore, wavelengths of the converted light by the emitter are approximately all within a bandgap wavelength range of the semiconductor of the photovoltaic cells).
Regarding claim 37, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
KARALIS teaches the conversion material comprises a configuration selected from the group consisting of fluorescent molecules or atoms embedded in a glass or ceramic matrix, powder, thin film, layer, conversion material surrounding the radiation product source, powder suspended in a liquid, gaseous, or fluid environment, and conversion material embedded in a waveguide (see Fig. 20A, [0271] the emitter can be built right on top of the heat-generating unit; Therefore, the emitter comprises the conversion material surrounding the radioactive heat).
Regarding claim 38, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
KARALIS teaches the photovoltaic cells comprise silicon ([claim7] wherein the at least one semiconductor material of the photovoltaic cell is Silicon).
Regarding claim 39, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 38.
KARALIS teaches the bandgap wavelength range is approximately 800 nm to approximately 1050 nm ([0197] where the bandgaps of the emitter and absorber semiconductors are matched; [claim7] wherein the at least one semiconductor material of the photovoltaic cell is Silicon; Since the bandgap range for the silicon solar cell is 1.1 – 1.4 eV, the bandgap wavelength range is 886 nm – 1127 nm; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected wavelength within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 40, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 39.
KARALIS teaches the bandgap wavelength range is approximately 850 nm to approximately 950 nm ([0197] where the bandgaps of the emitter and absorber semiconductors are matched; [claim7] wherein the at least one semiconductor material of the photovoltaic cell is Silicon; Since the bandgap range for the silicon solar cell is 1.1 – 1.4 eV, the bandgap wavelength range is 886 nm – 1127 nm; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected wavelength within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 41, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
KARALIS teaches the photovoltaic cells are not multi-junction cells ([0025] a PV cell comprising a semiconductor thin-film pn-junction absorber).
Regarding claim 42, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
KARALIS teaches the plurality of photovoltaic cells are configured in a series-parallel network ([0267] The electrical outputs of the top and bottom PV cells 2030 drive varying loads 2040 (which can be connected in series or in parallel or in another way)).
Regarding claims 43-44, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
Regarding the claimed “a screen configured to block material sublimated or evaporated from the radiation product source from depositing on at least one of the reflectors photovoltaic cells” in claim 43 and “wherein the screen is transparent to light within the bandgap wavelength range”, YABLONOVITCH discloses a thermophotovoltaic (TPV) system, wherein the TPV components can optionally include a filter 18 between the photovoltaic device 14 and the emitter 12 and The filter 18 can be configured to transmit wavelengths within the TPV wavelength range and to return wavelengths outside of the TPV wavelength range to the emitter 12 (see [0021] and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the filter between the thermophotovoltaic converter and the emitter in KARALIS as taught by YABLONOVITCH, because the filter transmits wavelengths within the TPV wavelength range and returns wavelengths outside of the TPV wavelength range to the emitter. Therefore, modified KARALIS teaches a screen (see the filter) configured to block material sublimated or evaporated from the radiation product source from depositing on at least one of the reflectors photovoltaic cells (The filter has a capability of this function), wherein the screen is transparent to light within the bandgap wavelength range (The filter transmits wavelengths within the TPV wavelength range).
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARALIS (US 20180131311 A1) in view of YABLONOVITCH (US 20170025984 A1) as applied to claim 36 above, further in view of LENERT (US 20160164451 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 36.
Regarding the claimed “a thermal management system”, KARALIS does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, LENERT discloses a solar thermal photovoltaic device, wherein the solar thermal photovoltaic device 10 may also include a thermal management system 26, (a chilled water cooling system), in thermal communication with the PV cell 18 (see [0023], Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when a solar cell's temperature increases, its efficiency decreases, therefore, the thermal management system (chilled water cooling system) keeps the photovoltaic device with low temperature and keeps the photovoltaic device efficiency high. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the thermal management system (chilled water cooling system) in the device of KARALIS as taught by LENERT, because the thermal management system (chilled water cooling system) keeps the photovoltaic device with low temperature and keeps the photovoltaic device efficiency high.
Regarding claim 46, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 35.
Modified KARALIS teaches the thermal management system maintains a temperature of the photovoltaic cells below approximately 10 oC (The chilled water typically ranges from 4.4 oC to 7.2 oC).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/29/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that the prior art does not teach or suggest the amended limitation in claim 1 in P5, is not persuasive.
YABLONOVITCH discloses suitable mechanisms for heating the emitter include, combustion, solar heat, and nuclear or radioactive heat [0019]. Therefore, modified KARALIS in view of YABLONOVITCH teaches all limitations in the amended claim 1 (see the full rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified and/or 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728