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 § 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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the interlayer has a thickness from about 100 μm to about 1500 μm” and is dependent on claim 1 which requires the first and second conformal layers of the interlayer to have thickness at a minimum of 220 μm, therefore it is unclear how the interlayer can be less than or equal to 440 μm. Appropriate correction and/or further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Li (CN 104538477 A, Machine Translation) in view of Hetzler (US 2012/0107615 A1) in view of Inamiya (US 2015/0007888 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9, Li discloses a tandem photovoltaic device comprising:
a first submodule (amorphous silicon battery [0033] [0039]-[0045]);
a second submodule (microcrystalline silicon thin film cell [0033][0046]-[0052]);
an interlayer ([0033]) disposed between the first submodule and the second submodule, wherein the interlayer permits a portion of light to pass therethrough (transparent [0033]), the interlayer including:
a first conformal layer ([0033] adhesive- ethylene-vinyl acetate/polyolefin [0034]) directly contacting and conforming to a portion of a surface of the first submodule,
a second conformal layer ([0033] adhesive EVA layer [0034]) directly contacting and conforming to a portion of a surface of the second submodule
a core layer ([0034 ] polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or PET) disposed between and directly contacting the first conformal layer and the second conformal layer.
However, Li does not explicitly disclose the melting point of the EVA and polytetrafluoroethylene composition used for the conformal layers and core layer, respectively.
Hetzler discloses a laminate structure (See Fig. 3 [0034]) comprising a PTFE or PET [0022] core layer (302, thermoplastic polymer [0017]-[0022]) between two conformal EVA/polyolefin layers (308/312, encapsulant layer, [0011]-[0012]) wherein the core layer is designed to have a PET/PTFE composition with a melting point above 200 degrees ([0017]-[0022]).
Inamiya discloses an EVA composition which is used as an adhesive composition in a solar cell wherein the EVA composition melting point can range between 60°C- 90°C ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the PTFE composition of the core and the EVA composition of the conformal layer of Li to have the melting points as disclosed by Hetzler by Inamiya because these compositions of EVA and PTFE are appropriate for use as solar cell laminate and adhesive compositions.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
However, Li does not disclose wherein the first conformal layer and second conformal layer have a thickness from about 220 μm to about 740 μm.
Hetzler discloses in the laminate structure that the conformal EVA/polyolefin layer can have a thickness ranging from 25.4 μm to 1016 μm (see [0016][0034] layers 308 and 312).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the thickness of the first and second conformal layer of modified Li to be within the claimed range because Hetzler discloses that this is appropriate thicknesses for first and second conformal layer which are part of a laminate structure which is used in a solar cell module.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
It is also noted that according to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
The modification noted above with Inamiya discloses an EVA composition which is used as an adhesive composition in a solar cell wherein the EVA composition melting point can range between 60°C- 90°C ([0020]) which corresponds to the first and second conformal layers.
The modification noted above with Hetzler discloses a laminate structure wherein the core layer is designed to have a PTFE composition with a melting point above 200 degrees to above 300 degrees Celsius ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Li discloses the same composition for the first and second conformal layer and the core layer, the same claimed melting point for the first and second conformal layer and the core layer and the claimed thickness for the first and second conformal layer and the core layer.
Therefore with regards to the properties of “wherein the interlayer has a dielectric strength greater than about 10 kV/mm” and “wherein the core layer has a dielectric strength greater than about 50 kV/mm”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, modified Li discloses wherein the interlayer has a thickness from about larger than 440 μm to thicknesses exceeding 2032 μm (see modification above with Hetzler).
However, modified Li does not explicitly disclose the claimed range, but does disclose an overlapping range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 12, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Li does not explicitly disclose
wherein the interlayer has a refractive index in a range of 1.4 to 1.8 at 800 nm
wherein the interlayer is configured to transmit at least 90% of light having a wavelength from about 700 nm to about 1300 nm passing therethrough
wherein the first conformal layer and the second conformal layer have different thicknesses
Li discloses that this is a transparent interlayer and is between two solar cells ([0007][0033]).
The optical properties of the interlayer will affect light absorption of underlying solar cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the above compositions of the conformal and core layers and/or thicknesses of the layers of Li to achieve the claimed properties of transparency/index of refraction because doing so will allow for optimization of light absorption of underlying solar cell.
It is also noted that according to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Li (CN 104538477 A, Machine Translation) in view of Hetzler (US 2012/0107615 A1) in view of Inamiya (US 2015/0007888 A1) as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 12 above and in further view LaCrampe (US 2017/0012151 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Li discloses that the core layer can comprise PET and Hetzler discloses that the core layer can comprise PET, however does not disclose wherein the core layer biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate.
LaCrampe discloses wherein the core layer used in a transparent multilayer film is a biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate ([0001][0027][0018]-[0023]) and using a biaxially oriented polyester film improves transparency, handling, and adhesion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the core PET layer of modified Li to use the biaxially orientated PET core film layer as disclosed by LaCrampe because LaCrampe discloses it is an appropriate core material for a multilayered film for use in photovoltaic module and furthermore improves transparency, handling,
However, Li does not disclose wherein the first/second conformal layer has a thickness from about 300 μm to about 740 μm and the core layer has a thickness from 300 μm to 200 μm. and adhesion.
In addition, Li discloses that the core layer has a thickness of 200 microns (see claim 7).
Modified Li disclose wherein the first conformal layer and second conformal layer has a thickness from about 220 μm to about 740 μm (See modification above with Hetzler).
However, modified Li does not explicitly disclose the claimed range, but does disclose an overlapping range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights