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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 10th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 10th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The drawing objection to claim 17 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(a) rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 12, 14, 16-17, and 19-24 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Hahn et al. in view of Brottier et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds for rejection follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19 is 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.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites, “an average distance between neighboring cooling channels”. Its unclear if these neighboring cooling channels correspond to the cooling channels comprising a plurality of branches which also comprise bifurcations or trifurcations or different distinct neighboring cooling channels. Appropriate action is required.
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.
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 12, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (US 2017/0155360 A1) in view of Brottier et al. (US 2014/0007919 A1) in view of Fischer (US 2022/0182013 A1).
In view of Claim 12, Hahn et al. discloses a photovoltaic-thermal module (Figure 2) comprising: a plurality of solar cells (Figure 2, #2 & Paragraph 0062); and a planar heat sink (Figure 2, #5), wherein the planar heat sink is based on at least one inorganic material (Figure 2, #27 & Paragraph 0072 – constructed from aluminum or copper) and comprises a plurality of cooling channels (Figure 2, & Paragraph 0029), and the planar heat sink extends completely across the solar cells (Figure 2, #5 extend across the entire bottom surface of the PV module). Hahn et al. teaches that the planar heat sink comprises two panels (Figure 2, #7 and #27) between which the cooling channels are formed (Figure 2 & Paragraph 0029 – cooling channels are visible but not annotated).
Hahn et al. does not disclose that the planar heat sink comprises two metal panels between which the cooling channels are located or an electrical isolation layer arranged between the planar heat sink and the lamination film.
Brottier et al. teaches that a planar heat sink comprises two metal panels (Fig. 4, #13, #2/#11 – Paragraph 0063) between which cooling channels that comprise a plurality of branches are located (Fig. 5, & Paragraph 0056-0057), and an electrical isolation layer arranged between the planar heat sink and the back surface of a plurality of solar cells (Fig. 4, #10 & Paragraph 0052). Brottier et al. teaches that this arrangement advantageously protects the solar cells from coolant fluid (Paragraph 0052), and that the instant invention can achieve a uniformity of temperature in photovoltaic elements, optimum extraction of heat, and robustness of the solar panel while reducing its weight (Paragraph 0010) while be manufactured industrially at a faster rate and lower cost (Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a planar heat sink that comprises two metal panels between which the cooling channels are located and an electrical isolation layer arranged between the planar heat sink and the lamination film for the advantage of protecting the solar cells from coolant fluid, and achieving a uniformity of temperature in photovoltaic elements, optimum extraction of heat, and robustness of the solar panel while reducing its weight while being manufactured industrially at a faster rate and lower cost.
Modified Hahn et al. does not disclose the cooling channels that comprise a plurality of branches also comprise bifurcations or trifurcations.
Fischer discloses cooling channels that comprise bifurcations (Fig. 15, each cooling channel is bifurcated via rib #136 – Paragraph 0085). Fischer discloses that it would be advantageous to provide…enhanced features of a solar energy system that improve the overall thermal efficiency of the solar panels and thus the system (Paragraph 0006). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cooling channels that comprise a plurality of branches also comprise bifurcations as disclosed by Fischer in modified Hahn et al. cooling tubes for the advantage of adopting an enhanced feature that improves the overall thermal efficiency of the solar panels and thus the system.
In view of Claim 14, Hahn et al., Brottier et al., and Fischer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Brottier et al. teaches a first panel of the two panels which faces the solar cells is flat (Fig. 4, #13) and the second panel of the two panels which faces away from the solar cells defines the cooling channel (Fig. 4, #2/#11 – Paragraph 0063).
In view of Claim 16, Hahn et al., Brottier et al., and Fischer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Brottier et al. teaches that the two panels are connected to each other by a connection means (Paragraph 0063).
In view of Claim 20, Hahn et al., Brottier et al., and Fischer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Hahn et al. teaches that the solar cells (Figure 8, #2) are mechanically supported by the planar heat sink (Figure 8, #4-#5) so that the photovoltaic thermal module is devoid of a support frame surrounding the solar cells (Figure 8 shows no support frame surrounding the solar cells and thus is devoid of said feature).
Claims 19 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn et al. (US 2017/0155360 A1) in view of Brottier et al. (US 2014/0007919 A1) in view of Fischer (US 2022/0182013 A1) in view of Branz et al. (US 2012/0024365 A1).
In view of Claim 19, Hahn et al., Brottier et al., and Fischer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Hahn et al. does not disclose that the cooling channels form a branched structure such that an average distance between neighboring cooling channels amounts to at most 50% of an average diameter of the solar cells.
Branz et al. teaches cooling channels that form a branched structure (Figure 3, #307) where an average distance between these channels is considerably less then 50% of the average diameter of the solar cells (Figure 3, #303) and an average distance between neighboring cooling channels is considerably less than 50% of the long side of the solar cells (Figure 3, #303). Branz et al. teaches that this construction is advantageous in the sense that it easily be constructed into a proper shape thereby avoiding the need to manually assemble an aluminum frame around the PV layers so as to lower assembly cost (Paragraph 0037). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the configuration of Branz et al. in Hahn et al. module such that an average distance between these channels is considerably less then 50% of the average diameter of the solar cells and at most 50% of an average long side of the solar cells for the advantage of adopting a method with easier construction and lower assembly cost.
In view of Claim 23, Hahn et al., Brottier et al., and Fischer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Hahn et al. does not disclose that the cooling channels form a branched structure such that an average distance between neighboring cooling channels amounts to at most 50% of an average diameter of the solar cells.
Branz et al. teaches cooling channels that form a branched structure (Figure 3, #307) where an average distance between these channels is considerably less then 50% of the average diameter of the solar cells (Figure 3, #303) and an average distance between neighboring cooling channels is considerably less than 50% of the long side of the solar cells (Figure 3, #303). Branz et al. teaches that this construction is advantageous in the sense that it easily be constructed into a proper shape thereby avoiding the need to manually assemble an aluminum frame around the PV layers so as to lower assembly cost (Paragraph 0037). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the configuration of Branz et al. in Hahn et al. module such that an average distance between these channels is considerably less then 50% of the average diameter of the solar cells and at most 50% of an average long side of the solar cells for the advantage of adopting a method with easier construction and lower assembly cost.
In view of Claim 24, Hahn et al., Brottier et al., and Fischer are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Hahn et al. does not disclose that the cooling channels form a branched structure such that an average distance between neighboring cooling channels amounts to at most 50% of an average diameter of the solar cells.
Branz et al. teaches cooling channels that form a branched structure (Figure 3, #307) where an average distance between these channels is considerably less then 50% of the average diameter of the solar cells (Figure 3, #303) and an average distance between neighboring cooling channels is considerably less than 50% of the long side of the solar cells (Figure 3, #303). Branz et al. teaches that this construction is advantageous in the sense that it easily be constructed into a proper shape thereby avoiding the need to manually assemble an aluminum frame around the PV layers so as to lower assembly cost (Paragraph 0037). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the configuration of Branz et al. in Hahn et al. module such that an average distance between these channels is considerably less then 50% of the average diameter of the solar cells and at most 50% of an average long side of the solar cells for the advantage of adopting a method with easier construction and lower assembly cost.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN108377134 A1) in view of Hahn et al. (US 2017/0155360 A1) in view of Brottier et al. (US 2014/0007919 A1) in view of Fischer (US 2022/0182013 A1).
In view of Claim 21, as best understood by the Examiner, Chen discloses a system (Fig. 4) comprising a photovoltaic-thermal module (Fig. 2 & Page 1, Summary of the invention); a pumping device (Figure 4, #15); and an earth probe (Figure 4, #16), wherein the pumping device is configured to pump a cooling liquid through the at least one photovoltaic-thermal module and through the earth probe (Page 2, Detailed ways, 3rd-4th Paragraph).
Chen fails to disclose a photovoltaic-thermal module of claim 12.
Hahn et al. teaches a photovoltaic-thermal module (Figure 2) comprising: a plurality of solar cells (Figure 2, #2 & Paragraph 0062); and a planar heat sink (Figure 2, #5), wherein the planar heat sink is based on at least one inorganic material (Figure 2, #27 & Paragraph 0072 – constructed from aluminum or copper) and comprises a plurality of cooling channels (Figure 2, & Paragraph 0029), and the planar heat sink extends completely across the solar cells (Figure 2, #5 extend across the entire bottom surface of the PV module). Hahn et al. teaches that the planar heat sink comprises two panels (Figure 2, #7 and #27) between which the cooling channels are formed (Figure 2 & Paragraph 0029 – cooling channels are visible but not annotated). Hahn et al. teaches that current hybrid modules have comparatively low electrical area output and in light of this, the present invention is to specify an improved solar module (Paragraph 0006-0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the photovoltaic-thermal module of Hahn et al. as the photovoltaic thermal module of Chen for the advantage of having improving electrical area output.
Hahn et al. does not disclose that the planar heat sink comprises two metal panels between which the cooling channels are located or an electrical isolation layer arranged between the planar heat sink and the lamination film.
Brottier et al. teaches that a planar heat sink comprises two metal panels (Fig. 4, #13, #2/#11 – Paragraph 0063) between which cooling channels are located (Fig. 5, & Paragraph 0056-0057), and an electrical isolation layer arranged between the planar heat sink and the back surface of a plurality of solar cells (Fig. 4, #10 & Paragraph 0052). Brottier et al. teaches that this arrangement advantageously protects the solar cells from coolant fluid (Paragraph 0052), and that the instant invention can achieve a uniformity of temperature in photovoltaic elements, optimum extraction of heat, and robustness of the solar panel while reducing its weight (Paragraph 0010) while be manufactured industrially at a faster rate and lower cost (Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a planar heat sink that comprises two metal panels between which the cooling channels are located and an electrical isolation layer arranged between the planar heat sink and the lamination film for the advantage of protecting the solar cells from coolant fluid, and achieving a uniformity of temperature in photovoltaic elements, optimum extraction of heat, and robustness of the solar panel while reducing its weight while being manufactured industrially at a faster rate and lower cost.
Modified Hahn et al. does not disclose the cooling channels that comprise a plurality of branches also comprise bifurcations or trifurcations.
Fischer discloses cooling channels that comprise bifurcations (Fig. 15, each cooling channel is bifurcated via rib #136 – Paragraph 0085). Fischer discloses that it would be advantageous to provide…enhanced features of a solar energy system that improve the overall thermal efficiency of the solar panels and thus the system (Paragraph 0006). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cooling channels that comprise a plurality of branches also comprise bifurcations as disclosed by Fischer in modified Hahn et al. cooling tubes for the advantage of adopting an enhanced feature that improves the overall thermal efficiency of the solar panels and thus the system.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1802795 B1) in view of Hahn et al. (US 2017/0155360 A1) in view of Brottier et al. (US 2014/0007919 A1) in view of Fischer (US 2022/0182013 A1). Lee is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 22, Lee discloses a solar system comprising a photovoltaic thermal module (Figs. 1-4) comprising: a plurality of solar cells (Fig. 1, #110 & Paragraph 0002); and a planar heat sink that is made of aluminum (Fig. 4, #160 & Paragraph 0039) and extends completely across the solar cells (Fig. 4, #110), and comprises a plurality of cooling channels (Fig. 4, #170 & Paragraph 0040); and a pumping device configured to pump water of a body of water as a cooling liquid through the photovoltaic thermal module (Fig. 2, #180-#181 & Paragraph 0046), wherein the solar system is configured to be arranged at least partially on the body of water (Figs. 1-4 & Paragraph 0001).
Lee fails to disclose a photovoltaic-thermal module of claim 12.
Hahn et al. teaches a photovoltaic-thermal module (Figure 2) comprising: a plurality of solar cells (Figure 2, #2 & Paragraph 0062); and a planar heat sink (Figure 2, #5), wherein the planar heat sink is based on at least one inorganic material (Figure 2, #27 & Paragraph 0072 – constructed from aluminum or copper) and comprises a plurality of cooling channels (Figure 2, & Paragraph 0029), and the planar heat sink extends completely across the solar cells (Figure 2, #5 extend across the entire bottom surface of the PV module). Hahn et al. teaches that the planar heat sink comprises two panels (Figure 2, #7 and #27) between which the cooling channels are formed (Figure 2 & Paragraph 0029 – cooling channels are visible but not annotated). Hahn et al. teaches that current hybrid modules have comparatively low electrical area output and in light of this, the present invention is to specify an improved solar module (Paragraph 0006-0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the photovoltaic-thermal module of Hahn et al. as the photovoltaic thermal module of Chen for the advantage of having improving electrical area output.
Hahn et al. does not disclose that the planar heat sink comprises two metal panels between which the cooling channels are located or an electrical isolation layer arranged between the planar heat sink and the lamination film.
Brottier et al. teaches that a planar heat sink comprises two metal panels (Fig. 4, #13, #2/#11 – Paragraph 0063) between which cooling channels are located (Fig. 5, & Paragraph 0056-0057), and an electrical isolation layer arranged between the planar heat sink and the back surface of a plurality of solar cells (Fig. 4, #10 & Paragraph 0052). Brottier et al. teaches that this arrangement advantageously protects the solar cells from coolant fluid (Paragraph 0052), and that the instant invention can achieve a uniformity of temperature in photovoltaic elements, optimum extraction of heat, and robustness of the solar panel while reducing its weight (Paragraph 0010) while be manufactured industrially at a faster rate and lower cost (Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a planar heat sink that comprises two metal panels between which the cooling channels are located and an electrical isolation layer arranged between the planar heat sink and the lamination film for the advantage of protecting the solar cells from coolant fluid, and achieving a uniformity of temperature in photovoltaic elements, optimum extraction of heat, and robustness of the solar panel while reducing its weight while being manufactured industrially at a faster rate and lower cost.
Modified Hahn et al. does not disclose the cooling channels that comprise a plurality of branches also comprise bifurcations or trifurcations.
Fischer discloses cooling channels that comprise bifurcations (Fig. 15, each cooling channel is bifurcated via rib #136 – Paragraph 0085). Fischer discloses that it would be advantageous to provide…enhanced features of a solar energy system that improve the overall thermal efficiency of the solar panels and thus the system (Paragraph 0006). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the cooling channels that comprise a plurality of branches also comprise bifurcations as disclosed by Fischer in modified Hahn et al. cooling tubes for the advantage of adopting an enhanced feature that improves the overall thermal efficiency of the solar panels and thus the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the combination of Hahn with Brottier would be unsatisfactory because incorporating Brottier’s stack with a metal rear side at the rear side 4 would not be transparent, and thus the incident light could not reach the reflecting surface 7 of the structure 5 if the rear side 4 would be made of metal. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that in Hahn Fig. 2 the rear side 4 is still transparent, yet unlike Figure 10 in the previous relied upon embodiment the reflecting surface in this embodiment is shown above the cooling tubes, and thus incident light would strike the reflecting surface 7 before striking the planar heat sink combination of Brottier. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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 T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726