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 .
Election/Restrictions
Since the argument is persuasive, the examiner withdraws the restriction. Thus, claim 21-44 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, 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.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidner (PG pub 20120097213), and in view of Seth et al (PG pub 20070281170) and Yoshimura (PG Pub 20030169476).
Regarding claim 21 and 28, Weidner teaches a solar structure comprising:
a first sheet of glazing material 22 [fig 4 para 20];
a second sheet of glazing material 26 [fig 4 para 20];
a third sheet of glazing material 24 [fig 4 para 20];
a photovoltaic portion 16 [fig 4 para 19];
a reflecting element 20 [fig 4 para 19-20];
the photovoltaic portion is laminated between the first sheet of glazing
material 22 and the third sheet of glazing material 24 [fig 4]
the photovoltaic portion 16 comprises a transparent region (16 transmits a portion of incident light), a bi-facial region, and at least one photovoltaic element [fig 4 para 24]
Weidner teaches second sheet of glazing material being separated from the third sheet of glazing material by a cavity [fig 4], but Weidner does not teach the fourth sheet of glazing material.
Seth et al teaches insulated glazing unit comprising first and second transparent substrate 312, 310 [fig 3 para 56]. Also, Seth et al teaches the transparent substrate 360 being adjacent to the reflecting multilayer polymeric film 350 and second transparent substrate 310 and being spaced from the first transparent substrate 312[fig 3 para 56]. Transparent substrate 360 is considered to be the fourth sheet of glazing material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the transparent substrate 360 of Seth et al next to reflective element 20 and spaced from the third sheet of glazing material of Weidner since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007). As for combination, the third sheet of glazing material and the fourth sheet of glazing material are separated by a cavity; and wherein reflecting element is positioned between the fourth sheet of glazing material and the second sheet of glazing material
Modified Weidner teaches a reflective element 20 being mirror [para 19] but fails to teach the reflecting element comprising an adjustable transparency reflecting element.
Yoshimura is directed to a switchable mirror which allows a switch between a mirrored surface and a transparent surface (abstract para 43 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a switchable mirror material being formed the glass mirror of Weidner, to allow switching between a mirrored surface and a transparent surface, as taught by Yoshimura, thereby allowing reflection and transparency (abstract para 43 48).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
893
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, modified Weidner teaches the cavity is sealed by at least one spacer bar [fig 4]
Regarding claim 23, Modified Weidner teaches the PV portion having first and second regions having different transparency values with first being greater than the second (shown in Figure 4 and corresponding text).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Weidner teaches the photovoltaic element comprising a silicon element or a cadmium telluride element (para 0021).
Regarding claim 25-26, Modified Weidner teaches the photovoltaic element being two or more strip photovoltaic elements (Figure 4 shows strip, 16 which is reasonably considered a plurality of interconnected adjacent strips which is parallel to each other). If this is not taken, the Examiner notes that the courts have held it is obvious to make integral parts separable (MPEP 2144.04 VC). Further, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04 (IVA)).
Regarding claim 29, Weidner teaches method of making a solar apparatus comprising a step of:
providing a first sheet of glazing material 22 [fig 4 para 20]; a second sheet of glazing material 26 [fig 4 para 20]; a third sheet of glazing material 24 [fig 4 para 20];
laminating a photovoltaic portion 16 between the first sheet and third sheet of glazing material [fig 4 para 19];
providing spacer bars [fig 4]
providing a reflecting element 20 [fig 4 para 19-20];
the photovoltaic portion is laminated between the first sheet of glazing
material 22 and the third sheet of glazing material 24 [fig 4]
the photovoltaic portion 16 comprises a transparent region (16 transmits a portion of incident light), a bi-facial region, and at least one photovoltaic element [fig 4 para 24]
the third sheet of glazing material and the fourth sheet of glazing material are separated with spacer bars to provide a cavity; and positioning reflecting element between the fourth sheet of glazing material and the second sheet of glazing material
reflecting element comprising the adjustable transparency reflecting element as set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
793
893
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidner (PG pub 20120097213), and Seth et al (PG pub 20070281170) and Yoshimura (PG Pub 20030169476) and further in view of JP2012199538, hereinafter as ‘539.
Regarding claim 25-27, modified Weidner teaches two strips being parallel and spaced apart as set forth above, but modified Weidner does not teach claimed pitched.
‘539 teaches a solar module comprising plurality of PV strip 3 being parallel and spaced apart [fig 3]. Also, ‘539 teaches the dimension and the spacing distance between strip of PV cell would be adjusted or changed for maximum efficiency (description section fig 3a b)
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or control the strip of the PV portion of modified Weidner to be parallel and space apart to arrive the claimed pitch for maximum efficiency (description section fig 3a b)
Claim(s) 30-35, 37-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidner (PG pub 20120097213), and in view of Yoshimura (PG Pub 20030169476).
Regarding claim 30, 37, Weidner teaches a solar structure comprising:
a first sheet of glazing material 22 comprising first face and second face [fig 4 para 20];
a second sheet of glazing material 26 first face and second face [fig 4 para 20];
a photovoltaic portion 16 [fig 4 para 19];
a reflecting element 20 [fig 4 para 19-20];
the first sheet of glazing material 22 and the second sheet of glazing material 26
are separated by a cavity; and wherein the second faces of each sheet of glazing material face towards the cavity; and wherein the photovoltaic portion and the reflecting element are each positioned between the first sheet of glazing material and the second sheet of glazing material [fig 4 see drawing below]
the photovoltaic portion 16 comprises a transparent region (16 transmits a portion of incident light), a bi-facial region, and at least one photovoltaic element [fig 4 para 24]
Weidner teaches a reflective element 20 being mirror [para 19] but fails to teach the reflecting element comprising an electrochromic element.
Yoshimura is directed to a switchable mirror which allows a switch between a mirrored surface and a transparent surface (abstract para 43 48). Para 5 of instance publication explains electrochromic material capable of varying their light throughput by controlling the transmittance and/or reflectance, it is considered that the switchable mirror is an electrochromic element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a switchable mirror material being formed the glass mirror of Weidner, to allow switching between a mirrored surface and a transparent surface, as taught by Yoshimura, thereby allowing reflection and transparency (abstract para 43 48).
PNG
media_image2.png
793
893
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, modified Weidner teaches the cavity is sealed by at least one spacer bar [fig 4]
Regarding claim 32, Modified Weidner teaches the PV portion having first and second regions having different transparency values with first being greater than the second (shown in Figure 4 and corresponding text).
Regarding claim 33, Modified Weidner teaches the photovoltaic element comprising a silicon element or a cadmium telluride element (para 0021).
Regarding claim 34-35, modified Weidner teaches the photovoltaic element being two or more strip photovoltaic elements (Figure 4 shows strip, 16 which is reasonably considered a plurality of interconnected adjacent strips which is parallel to each other). If this is not taken, the Examiner notes that the courts have held it is obvious to make integral parts separable (MPEP 2144.04 VC). Further, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP § 2144.04 (IVA)).
Regarding claim 38, modified Weidner teaches a third sheet of glazing material 24 comprising a first face and a second face; and wherein the third sheet of glazing is positioned between the first and second sheets of glazing material and wherein the first face of the third sheet of glazing material faces towards the first sheet of glazing material; and the second face of the third sheet of glazing material faces towards the second sheet of glazing material [fig 4]
Regarding claim 39, Modified Weidner teaches the third sheet bisecting the cavity to form first and second cavity portions (L and R, see F4).
Regarding claim 40-41, Modified Weidner teaches a sheet of interlayer material between first (22) and third (24) (see F4, 16 is taught as multilayer configuration, paragraph 0019 and thus one layer reads on the instant interlayer).
Regarding claim 42, Modified Weidner teaches the photovoltaic element (16) being positioned between the first and third sheets (F4).
Regarding claim 43, Modified Weidner teaches the reflecting element being positioned between the first and third sheets (see 20 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 44, Weidner teaches method comprising a step of:
providing a first sheet of glazing material 22 and a second sheet of glazing material 26 first face and second face [fig 4 para 20];
provide spacers bars [fig 4]
separating the first sheet of glazing material and the second sheet of glazing
material with the one or more spacer bars to provide a cavity [fig 4]
positioning a photovoltaic portion and a reflecting element between the first
sheet of glazing material and the second sheet of glazing material to form the
multifunctional glazing unit
the photovoltaic portion 16 comprises a transparent region (16 transmits a portion of incident light), a bi-facial region, and at least one photovoltaic element [fig 4 para 24]
the reflecting element comprising an electrochromic element as set forth above.
PNG
media_image2.png
793
893
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s)34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidner (PG pub 20120097213), and Seth et al (PG pub 20070281170) and further in view of JP2012199538, hereinafter as ‘539.
Regarding claim 34-36, modified Weidner teaches two strips being parallel and spaced apart as set forth above, but modified Weidner does not teach claimed pitched.
‘539 teaches a solar module comprising plurality of PV strip 3 being parallel and spaced apart [fig 3]. Also, ‘539 teaches the dimension and the spacing distance between strip of PV cell would be adjusted or changed for maximum efficiency (description section fig 3a b)
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or control the strip of the PV portion of modified Weidner to be parallel and space apart to arrive the claimed pitch for maximum efficiency (description section fig 3a b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726