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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 16th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 16th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 11,081,606 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Huang in view of Chu are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Huang in view of Maimon are maintained.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16, and 18-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a semiconductor wafer comprising monocrystalline silicon at a thickness greater than 0.1 mm”. Support for this limitation cannot be found in the instantly filed specification. Accordingly, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-16, and 18-27 are 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 1, Applicant recites, “a semiconductor wafer that is carrier-less and is encapsulated between a top-side encapsulant and a bottom-side encapsulant”. Its unclear how the semiconductor wafer is “carrier-less” which the Examiner is interpreting as being essentially free standing without any other supports, yet is sandwiched between two encapsulant materials. 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 1-3, 5-6, 9, 13, 22-23, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Chu (US 2017/0365755 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Huang et al. discloses a system (Figs. 12-13) comprising:
a flexible and rollable photovoltaic article that converts incoming light to electricity via a photovoltaic effect (Figs. 12-13, #10 & Paragraph 0028),
comprising an array of flexible and rollable photovoltaic cells that convert incoming light to electricity (Figs. 12-13, #310 & Paragraph 0030-0031);
wherein the rollable photovoltaic awning is configured to transit between a rolled-out state (Fig. 12 & Paragraph 0020) and a rolled-in state (Fig. 13 & Paragraph 0021);
wherein at least a majority of a surface area of the rollable photovoltaic awning comprises a flexible and rollable photovoltaic cell (Fig. 4 #310 & Paragraph 0034)
Huang et al. does not disclose that the flexible and rollable photovoltaic article comprises a semiconductor wafer that is carrier-less and is encapsulated between a top-side encapsulant and a bottom-side encapsulant, the semiconductor wafer having a thickness, and having a first surface, and having a second surface that is opposite to said first surface; a set of non-transcending gaps, within said semiconductor wafer, wherein each non-transcending gap penetrates from the first surface of said semiconductor wafer towards the second surface of said semiconductor wafer but reaches to a depth of between 50 to 99 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer, and does not reach said second surface; wherein said semiconductor wafer maintains between 1 to 50 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer as an intact and non-penetrated thin layer of semiconductor wafer that remains intact and non-penetrated by said non-transcending gaps, wherein each non-transcending gap is filled with an elastomer that absorbs mechanical shocks and dissipates mechanical forces that are applied towards said photovoltaic cell; wherein the non-transcending gaps in the semiconductor wafer, and the elastomer that fills the non-transcending gaps in the semiconductor wafer, absorb and dissipate mechanical forces and provide flexibility to said photovoltaic cell.
Chu discloses a flexible photovoltaic article that comprises a semiconductor wafer that is carrier-less (Fig. 1B, #11 & Paragraph 0087) that’s encapsulated between a top-side encapsulant and a bottom-side encapsulant (Fig. 1B, #12 and #14 respectively - Paragraph 0087), wherein top side encapsulant can be selected to comprise stretchable material (Paragraph 0110 – “the temperature could be selected to be below the curing temperature of the “hard organic or inorganic material” to generate semi-cured flexible, stretch, soft properties), the semiconductor wafer having a thickness (Fig. 1B, #11 has an overall thickness, see edge of element) and having a first surface (Fig. 1B, #11 bottom surface) and a second surface (Fig. 1B, #11 top surface), and sets of non-transcending gaps within said semiconductor wafer that penetrate from the surface of said semiconductor wafer towards the second surface of said semiconductor wafer but reaches to a depth that is at least 50 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer and does not reach said second surface (Fig. 1B, the gap regions), wherein said semiconductor wafer maintains between 1-50 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer as an intact and non-penetrated thin layer of semiconductor wafer that remains intact and non-penetrated by said non-transcending gaps (Fig. 1B, #11 has at least 50 percent of its thickness and definitely more than 1 percent of its thickness), each of the non-transcending gaps are filled with an organic or inorganic material (Paragraph 0096) that is formed to have stretch properties after curing (Paragraph 0096) as well as being flexible and soft (Paragraph 0110), thus it’s the Examiner’s position that said material reads on an elastomer that would be capable of absorbing mechanical shocks that are applied towards the photovoltaic article. Chu discloses that this configuration can be used as a flexible solar cell that is very useful to protect flexible modules while having savings costs (Paragraph 0122). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to utilize Chu’s flexible and rollable photovoltaic article in Huang et al. system for the advantages of using a very useful and flexible solar cell that is able to protect the solar cells while contributing to savings costs.
Chu does not disclose the material of the semiconductor wafer or its thickness being greater than 0.1 mm.
Maimon et al. discloses that the material of a semiconductor wafer can be selected to as monocrystalline silicon (Paragraph 0084) and can have a thickness greater than 0.1 mm (Paragraph 0234). Maimon et al. teaches that there is a need in the PV production field for toughened and/or flexible semiconductor PV substrates and devices with enhanced physical toughness characteristics (Paragraph 0029). Maimon et al. teaches that there is a need for low cost and improved flexible solar electricity producing surfaces and a need for flexible PV modules with improved durability (Paragraph 0033-0034). Maimon et al. teaches that the PV array comprising these cells may be used as a tent in a temporary structure (Paragraph 0056). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt Maimon’s material of a semiconductor wafer and a thickness greater than 0.1 mm for the advantages of utilizing configurations with enhanced physical toughness characteristics that are low cost, flexible, and have improved durability.
In view of Claim 2, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation that the rollable photovoltaic awning is structured to withstand at least 1,000 cycles of rolling and unrolling with not more than 15 percent degradation of operational photovoltaic efficiency, Chu discloses the same array and flexible photovoltaic cell structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for it “to withstand at least 1,000 cycles of rolling and unrolling with not more than 15 percent degradation of operational photovoltaic efficiency”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 3, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. discloses a rolling and unrolling unit (Fig 8, #100 & Paragraph 0054) configured to deploy the rollable photovoltaic awning by transitioning it from the rolled-in state to the rolled-out state (Fig. 12 & Paragraph 0006) and also configured to store the rollable photovoltaic awning by transitioning it from the rolled-out state to the rolled-in state (Fig. 13 & Paragraph 0006).
In view of Claim 5, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Huang et al. teaches that the rolling and unrolling unit comprises an electric motor for rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0054).
In view of Claim 6, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Huang et al. teaches the electric motor is powered, at least in part or at least in particular time-periods by electricity that was generated by said rollable photovoltaic awning (Paragraph 0054).
In view of Claim 7, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Chu teaches that the top-sheet can be made of sapphire which would protect the flexible and rollable photovoltaic article from rain and hail damage (Paragraph 0138).
In view of Claim 9, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Chu discloses that the flexible and rollable photovoltaic article comprises a flexible and rollable back-sheet that supports and carries the flexible and rollable photovoltaic article (Fig. 5B, #14 & Paragraph 0141).
In view of Claim 13, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Chu discloses that the flexible and rollable photovoltaic article excludes any top-sheet protective layer besides the substrate already present (Fig. 5B, only the substrate is present on top surface).
In view of Claim 22, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. teaches that in the rolled out state the rollable photovoltaic awning is supported by at least one of one or more slanted support arms (Fig. 12, #500).
In view of Claim 23, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. teaches that the rollable photovoltaic awning is configured to generate electricity from light even when being entirely roll-in at the rolled-in position by generating electricity from light that falls on an exposed to light external surface area of the rollable photovoltaic awning in a fully rolled in state (Figs. 11-13, #310/#600 & Paragraph 0061).
In view of Claim 26, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. was relied upon to disclose why an entirety of a surface area (aggregate greater than 95%) is formed of a plurality of co-located rollable photovoltaic regions (Fig. 4). Maimon et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to use the single continuous rollable photovoltaic (Paragraph 0071). Maimon et al. teaches that the side edges and side panels of the photovoltaic awning may be surrounded by support layers that are rollable (Paragraph 0130), thus the single continuous rollable photovoltaic region can be surrounded at its side edges and side panels w/ non-photovoltaic support layers functioning as a “frame”.
In view of Claim 27, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. teaches that the rollable photovoltaic awning is configured to attachment to a RV (Figs. 12-13).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Chu (US 2017/0365755 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1) in view of Venter (US 2022/0356726 A1).
In view of Claim 4, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. does not disclose that the rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core.
Venter discloses a rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core for the advantage of being able to manually reel in the awning when power is not available (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core for the advantage of reeling in the awning when power is not available.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Chu (US 2017/0365755 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1) in view of Kumaria et al. (US 2022/0231636 A1)
In view of Claim 4, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. does not disclose that the rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core.
Kumaria et al. teaches that its advantageous to design the electric motor system of Huang et al. that comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core in case electrical actuation fails (Paragraph 0041). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Huang et al. rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core for the advantage of being able to retract the awning if electrical actuation fails.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Chu (US 2017/0365755 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1) in view of Raghunathan (US 2022/0021328 A1).
In view of Claim 10, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Huang et al. does not disclose a wind sensor configured to measure properties of a wind and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if one or more measured properties of the wind are greater than a predefined threshold value.
Raghunathan disclose a wind sensor configured to measure properties of a wind and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if one or more measured properties of the wind are greater than a predefined threshold value to advantageously prevent damage of the photovoltaic awning structure (Paragraph 0049). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the wind sensor of Raghunathan configured to measure properties of a wind and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if one or more measured properties of the wind are greater than a predefined threshold value in modified Huang et al. system to advantageously prevent damage of the photovoltaic awning structure.
In view of Claim 11, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Huang et al. does not disclose a hail sensor configured to detect that hail is falling and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if hail is detected.
Raghunathan disclose a hail sensor configured to detect that hail is falling and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if hail is detected (Paragraph 0049). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the hail sensor of Raghunathan configured to detect that hail is falling and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if hail is detected in modified Huang et al. system to advantageously prevent damage of the photovoltaic awning structure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Chu (US 2017/0365755 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1) in view of Robinson et al. (US 2014/0265941 A1)
In view of Claim 12, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Huang et al. does not disclose a vibrations sensor configured to detect and measure vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled-out state to the rolled-in state based on properties of measured vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning.
Robinson et al. teaches a vibrations sensor configured to detect and measure vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled-out state to the rolled-in state based on properties of measured vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning that advantageously inhibits motion of the photovoltaic awning if the vehicle is in motion (Paragraph 0037). Accordingly, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the vibration sensor of Robinson et al. into Huang et al. system such that a vibrations sensor configured to detect and measure vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled-out state to the rolled-in state based on properties of measured vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning for the advantage of inhibiting motion of the photovoltaic awning when the vehicle is in motion.
Claims 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Chu (US 2017/0365755 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1) in view of Thiel et al. (US 2018/025882 A1).
In regards to claims 15-20, Huang et al., Chu, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Thiel et al. discloses that flexible and rollable solar cells can comprise CIGS, organic material, silicon, monocrystalline silicon, CdTe, GaAs or perovskite (Paragraph 0236) and that the invention advantageously improves overall photoelectric conversion efficiency (Paragraph 0022). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate one of these materials for the advantage of having improved overall photoelectric conversion efficiency and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the material selected for the solar cells and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
Claims *** are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1).
In view of Claims 1 & 21, Huang et al. discloses a system (Figs. 12-13) comprising:
a flexible and rollable photovoltaic article that converts incoming light to electricity via a photovoltaic effect (Figs. 12-13, #10 & Paragraph 0028),
comprising an array of flexible and rollable photovoltaic cells that convert incoming light to electricity (Figs. 12-13, #310 & Paragraph 0030-0031);
wherein the rollable photovoltaic awning is configured to transit between a rolled-out state (Fig. 12 & Paragraph 0020) and a rolled-in state (Fig. 13 & Paragraph 0021);
wherein at least a majority of a surface area of the rollable photovoltaic awning comprises a flexible and rollable photovoltaic cell (Fig. 4 #310 & Paragraph 0034)
Huang et al. does not disclose that the flexible and rollable photovoltaic article comprises a semiconductor wafer that is carrier-less and is encapsulated between a top-side encapsulant and a bottom-side encapsulant, the semiconductor wafer having a thickness, and having a first surface, and having a second surface that is opposite to said first surface; a set of non-transcending gaps, within said semiconductor wafer, wherein each non-transcending gap penetrates from the first surface of said semiconductor wafer towards the second surface of said semiconductor wafer but reaches to a depth of between 50 to 99 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer, and does not reach said second surface; wherein said semiconductor wafer maintains between 1 to 50 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer as an intact and non-penetrated thin layer of semiconductor wafer that remains intact and non-penetrated by said non-transcending gaps, wherein each non-transcending gap is filled with an elastomer that absorbs mechanical shocks and dissipates mechanical forces that are applied towards said photovoltaic cell; wherein the non-transcending gaps in the semiconductor wafer, and the elastomer that fills the non-transcending gaps in the semiconductor wafer, absorb and dissipate mechanical forces and provide flexibility to said photovoltaic cell.
Maimon et al. teaches a flexible and rollable photovoltaic cell comprises a semiconductor wafer that is carrier-less (Paragraph 0213-0217), monocrystalline silicon (Paragraph 0084) and can have a thickness greater than 0.1 mm (Paragraph 0234), having a thickness, and having a first surface, and a having a second surface that is opposite to said first surface; a set of non-transcending gaps, within said semiconductor wafer, wherein each non-transcending gap penetrates from the first surface of said semiconductor wafer towards the second surface of said semiconductor wafer but reaches to a depth of between 50 to 99 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer, and does not reach said second surface; wherein each non-transcending gap does not entirely penetrate through an entirety of the thickness of said semiconductor wafer, wherein said semiconductor wafer maintains between 1 to 50 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer as an intact and non-penetrated thin layer of semiconductor wafer that remains intact and non-penetrated by said non-transcending gaps (Abstract), wherein each non-transcending gap is filled with an elastomer that absorbs mechanical shocks and dissipates mechanical forces that are applied towards said photovoltaic cell (Paragraph 0041-0042); wherein said semiconductor wafer, that is freestanding and carrier-less, excludes and does not comprise, and is not connected and not mounted on, any flexible film layer (Paragraph 0214-0215), wherein the non-transcending gaps in the semiconductor wafer, and the elastomer that fills the non-transcending gaps in the semiconductor wafer, absorb and dissipate mechanical forces and provide flexibility to said photovoltaic cell (Abstract & Paragraph 0219).
Maimon et al. teaches that in the rollable photovoltaic article can have a cylindrical form-factor with a diameter than is smaller than 50 cm, and that the state of the rollable photovoltaic article can have a surface area of at least 2 square meters (Paragraph 0129). In regards to the limitation that the diameter is smaller than 30 cm, Maimon et al. discloses that the rollable photovoltaic article can have a width and length of 0.12 m, which corresponds to a 12cm x 12 cm awning, it would be obvious that a 12 cm x 12 cm awning could be rolled into cylindrical form factor smaller than 30 cm.
Maimon et al. teaches that there is a need in the PV production field for toughened and/or flexible semiconductor PV substrates and devices with enhanced physical toughness characteristics (Paragraph 0029). Maimon et al. teaches that there is a need for low cost and improved flexible solar electricity producing surfaces and a need for flexible PV modules with improved durability (Paragraph 0033-0034). Maimon et al. teaches that the PV array comprising these cells may be used as a tent in a temporary structure (Paragraph 0056). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Huang et al. array of flexible and rollable photovoltaic cells with Maimon et al. flexible and rollable array of photovoltaic cells for the advantages of using an array of flexible and rollable photovoltaic cells with improved flexibility and durability with enhanced physical toughness characteristics.
In view of Claim 2, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. In regards to the limitation that the rollable photovoltaic awning is structured to withstand at least 1,000 cycles of rolling and unrolling with not more than 15 percent degradation of operational photovoltaic efficiency, Maimon et al. discloses that the flexible and rollable photovoltaic cells can be rollable, foldable and flexible without breaking or becoming functionally damaged or functionally degraded (Paragraph 0222) and Maimon et al. discloses the same array and flexible photovoltaic cell structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for it “to withstand at least 1,000 cycles of rolling and unrolling with not more than 15 percent degradation of operational photovoltaic efficiency”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
In view of Claim 3, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. discloses a rolling and unrolling unit (Fig 8, #100 & Paragraph 0054) configured to deploy the rollable photovoltaic awning by transitioning it from the rolled-in state to the rolled-out state (Fig. 12 & Paragraph 0006) and also configured to store the rollable photovoltaic awning by transitioning it from the rolled-out state to the rolled-in state (Fig. 13 & Paragraph 0006).
In view of Claim 5, Huang et al. and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Huang et al. teaches that the rolling and unrolling unit comprises an electric motor for rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core (Fig. 2 & Paragraph 0054).
In view of Claim 6, Huang et al. and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Huang et al. teaches the electric motor is powered, at least in part or at least in particular time-periods by electricity that was generated by said rollable photovoltaic awning (Paragraph 0054).
In view of Claim 8, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Applicant discloses that a flexible and rollable top-sheet that protects the rollable photovoltaic awning from ultraviolet damage is the material ETFE (Paragraph 0097 of USPGPub of Instant Application). Maimon et al. discloses that a top sheet for the flexible and rollable is the material ETFE (Paragraph 0053). Accordingly, as evidenced by Applicant’s specification Maimon et al. discloses a flexible and rollable top-sheet that protects the rollable photovoltaic awning from ultraviolet damage.
In view of Claim 13, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Maimon et al. teaches that in some embodiments the PV cell array is covered with a top sheet (Paragraph 0193), this implies in other embodiments it is not present.
Maimon et al. teaches that the rollable photovoltaic awning is by itself sufficiently resilient to mechanical forces and mechanical shocks (Paragraph 0212).
In view of Claim 14, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Maimon et al. teaches that in some embodiments the PV cell array comprises a back-sheet (Paragraph 0080), this implies in other embodiments it is not present.
Maimon et al. teaches that the rollable photovoltaic awning is by itself sufficiently resilient to mechanical forces and mechanical shocks (Paragraph 0212).
In view of Claim 22, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. teaches that in the rolled out state the rollable photovoltaic awning is supported by at least one of one or more slanted support arms (Fig. 12, #500).
In view of Claim 23, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. teaches that the rollable photovoltaic awning is configured to generate electricity from light even when being entirely roll-in at the rolled-in position by generating electricity from light that falls on an exposed to light external surface area of the rollable photovoltaic awning in a fully rolled in state (Figs. 11-13, #310/#600 & Paragraph 0061).
In view of Claim 24, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Maimon et al. teaches an entirety of the surface area of the rollable photovoltaic awning is formed of a single continuous rollable photovoltaic region (Paragraph 0071) wherein said single continuous rollable photovoltaic region is not surrounded by and not enclosed within any non-photovoltaic frame (there are not any non-photovoltaic frames present).
In view of Claim 25, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. was relied upon to disclose why an entirety of a surface area (greater than 95%) is covered with a rollable and flexible photovoltaic awning (Fig. 4). Maimon et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to use the single continuous rollable photovoltaic (Paragraph 0071). Maimon et al. teaches that the side edges and side panels of the photovoltaic awning may be surrounded by support layers that are rollable (Paragraph 0130), thus the single continuous rollable photovoltaic region can be surrounded at its side edges and side panels w/ non-photovoltaic support layers functioning as a “frame”.
In view of Claim 26, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. was relied upon to disclose why an entirety of a surface area (aggregate greater than 95%) is formed of a plurality of co-located rollable photovoltaic regions (Fig. 4). Maimon et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to use the single continuous rollable photovoltaic (Paragraph 0071). Maimon et al. teaches that the side edges and side panels of the photovoltaic awning may be surrounded by support layers that are rollable (Paragraph 0130), thus the single continuous rollable photovoltaic region can be surrounded at its side edges and side panels w/ non-photovoltaic support layers functioning as a “frame”.
In view of Claim 27, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. teaches that the rollable photovoltaic awning is configured to attachment to a RV (Figs. 12-13).
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1) in view of Venter (US 2022/0356726 A1).
In view of Claim 4, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. does not disclose that the rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core.
Venter discloses a rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core for the advantage of being able to manually reel in the awning when power is not available (Paragraph 0061). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core for the advantage of reeling in the awning when power is not available.
In view of Claim 21, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Maimon et al. teaches that in the rolled-in state the rollable photovoltaic awning can have a cylindrical form-factor with a diameter than is smaller than 50 cm, and that the rolled out state of the rollable photovoltaic awning can have a surface area of at least 2 square meters (Paragraph 0129). In regards to the limitation that the diameter is smaller than 30 cm, Maimon et al. discloses that the rollable photovoltaic awning can have a width and length of 0.12 m, which corresponds to a 12cm x 12 cm awning, it would be obvious that a 12 cm x 12 cm awning could be rolled into cylindrical form factor smaller than 30 cm.
Venter discloses that the diameter is kept between 3-6 cm to advantageously minimize the degree of bending of a rollable photovoltaic awning (Paragraph 0031). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to keep the diameter between 3-6 cm as disclosed by Venter in order to minimize the degree of bending of the rollable photovoltaic awning.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1) in view of Kumaria et al. (US 2022/0231636 A1)
In view of Claim 4, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang et al. does not disclose that the rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core.
Kumaria et al. teaches that its advantageous to design the electric motor system of Huang et al. that comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core in case electrical actuation fails (Paragraph 0041). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Huang et al. rolling and unrolling unit comprises a shaft for manually rotating the rollable photovoltaic awning around a central cylindrical core for the advantage of being able to retract the awning if electrical actuation fails.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1) in view of Raghunathan (US 2022/0021328 A1).
In view of Claim 10, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Huang et al. does not disclose a wind sensor configured to measure properties of a wind and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if one or more measured properties of the wind are greater than a predefined threshold value.
Raghunathan disclose a wind sensor configured to measure properties of a wind and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if one or more measured properties of the wind are greater than a predefined threshold value to advantageously prevent damage of the photovoltaic awning structure (Paragraph 0049). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the wind sensor of Raghunathan configured to measure properties of a wind and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if one or more measured properties of the wind are greater than a predefined threshold value in modified Huang et al. system to advantageously prevent damage of the photovoltaic awning structure.
In view of Claim 11, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Huang et al. does not disclose a hail sensor configured to detect that hail is falling and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if hail is detected
Raghunathan disclose a hail sensor configured to detect that hail is falling and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if hail is detected (Paragraph 0049). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the hail sensor of Raghunathan configured to detect that hail is falling and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled out state to the rolled in state if hail is detected in modified Huang et al. system to advantageously prevent damage of the photovoltaic awning structure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2024/0421758 A1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2021/0313478 A1) in view of Robinson et al. (US 2014/0265941 A1)
In view of Claim 12, Huang and Maimon are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Huang et al. does not disclose a vibrations sensor configured to detect and measure vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled-out state to the rolled-in state based on properties of measured vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning.
Robinson et al. teaches a vibrations sensor configured to detect and measure vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled-out state to the rolled-in state based on properties of measured vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning that advantageously inhibits motion of the photovoltaic awning if the vehicle is in motion (Paragraph 0037). Accordingly, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the vibration sensor of Robinson et al. into Huang et al. system such that a vibrations sensor configured to detect and measure vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning and configured to trigger transition of the rollable photovoltaic awning from the rolled-out state to the rolled-in state based on properties of measured vibrations of the rollable photovoltaic awning for the advantage of inhibiting motion of the photovoltaic awning when the vehicle is in motion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Huang relates to cells made of flexible material such that no such grooves would be required, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would receive no motivation to modify the cell to render it more flexible. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Huang’s solar cell is being modified but substituted for the solar cell of Chu. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Chu does not disclose non-transcending gaps that penetrate only 50% to 90% of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer and explicitly do not reach the opposite surface thereby leaving an intact and continuous semiconductor layer (1%-50% of the thickness) that remains non-penetrated. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Chu was relied upon to disclose sets of non-transcending gaps within said semiconductor wafer that penetrate from the surface of said semiconductor wafer towards the second surface of said semiconductor wafer but reaches to a depth that is at least 50 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer and does not reach said second surface (Fig. 1B, the gap regions), wherein said semiconductor wafer maintains between 1-50 percent of the thickness of the semiconductor wafer as an intact and non-penetrated thin layer of semiconductor wafer that remains intact and non-penetrated by said non-transcending gaps (Fig. 1B, #11 has at least 50 percent of its thickness and definitely more than 1 percent of its thickness). Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Its respectfully pointed out to Applicant that claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation, “wherein in a rolled-in state, the flexible and rollable photovoltaic article has a cylindrical form-factor with a diameter that is smaller than 30 centimeters”. However, claim 1 does not have support for this corresponding limitation, and thus according to MPEP 211.05, I, B, “Where the prior application (a nonprovisional application) is found to be fatally defective because of insufficient disclosure to support allowable claims, a later-filed application filed as a "continuation-in-part" of the first application to supply the deficiency is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application. Hunt Co. v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 177 F.2d 583, 587, 83 USPQ 277, 281 (2d Cir. 1949) and cases cited therein. Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application. See, e.g., In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Van Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136, 173 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1972)”.
Claims 1-16, and 18-27, are claims in a continuation-in-part application (the instant application 18/738,078) that recite features which were not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application. Therefore, the effective filing date of claims 1-16, and 18-27 is June 10th, 2024, and Maimon (US 2021/0313478 A1) qualifies as prior art for these specific claims.
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
Prosecution Insights