DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/744,700, filed on 06/17/2024, which claims foreign priority to UK 2309465.9, filed on 06/22/2023.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 08/27/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-10 are currently pending.
Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are examined below.
The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 08/27/2025 have been carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
The applicant argues various points that do not directly address any of the findings set forth in the grounds of rejection. For instance, the applicant argues that POSITA cannot use the composed disclosed in YIN in the tubular photovoltaic cell of the present invention (Remarks 6), and mentions that the glass layer is non-conductive. This point does not directly address any of the specific findings in the rejections below. The examiner asks the applicant to clarify why it matters whether the glass layer is non-conductive, as it relates to the claimed features. The examiner considered each recited features of the independent claim, and made a specific reference to the prior art that disclosed said feature. For the recited composite wall, the examiner points to the composite layer 112’, not the glass layer 102.
None of the applicant’s other arguments present a compelling reason that the prior art references do not teach and suggest the claimed invention, and none of the arguments highlight any clear or reversible error. The examiner respectfully requests that the applicant present more specific arguments and highlight exact quoted portions of the grounds of rejection to which it wishes to identify as containing clearly erroneous findings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIN (US 2012/0097217 A1) in view of WEINSTEIN (US 3,990,914 A).
Regarding claim 1, YIN teaches a heat recovery system 100 (“solar heating systems”, abstract) for tubular photovoltaic module 10, wherein the system 100 comprises:
at least one composite wall 110 (composite layer 112’ fabricated from aluminum nitride and high density polyethylene, Fig. 2 and para. 24) having an inner surface 112, an outer surface 114, a top end 116, and a bottom end 118 (layer has inner surfaces comprising interfacing with water tubes 116 and outer side surfaces, as well as top and bottom ends interfacing with adjacent stacked layers, see Fig. 2), wherein the inner surface 112 of the composite wall 110 is thermally conductive and electrically non-conductive (YIN, para. 7, teaches that the composite wall is so designed in order to improve the effective thermal conductivity and allow heat to be rapidly transferred into the water tubes, so this would be obvious to require excellent thermal conduction and electrical isolation at the inner surface that interfaces with the working fluid tubes), and the outer surface 114 of the composite wall 110 is thermally non-conductive (YIN, para. 7, teaches that the composite wall is so designed in order to improve the effective thermal conductivity and allow heat to be rapidly transferred into the water tubes, so this would be obvious to require excellent thermal conduction to the tubes and zero thermal conduction to the system exterior/outer surface; also, “volume fraction of aluminum is rapidly reduced through the thickness of the layer,” para. 21, which the examiner determines would in turn gradually decrease the thermal conductivity so that the inner surface is thermally conductive and the outer surface is thermally non-conductive);
at least one thermal connector 120 (water tubes 116) thermally coupled with the inner surface 112 of the composite wall 110.
YIN teaches that the composite wall (also termed “functionally graded material interlayer”) is so designed in order to improve the effective thermal conductivity and allow heat to be rapidly transferred into the water tubes (para. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YIN does not disclose expressly at least one heat extracting coil 130 thermally coupled with the thermal connector 120.
WEINSTEIN teaches a heat extracting coil thermally coupled to a thermal connector that transfers thermal energy from the photovoltaic module to a heat exchanger (Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
592
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify YIN and add a heat extracting coil thermally coupled to a thermal connector that transfers thermal energy from the photovoltaic module to a heat exchanger so that heat can be utilized by an external system as taught by WEINSTEIN (col. 8, ll. 39-42).
Claim 1 recites an intended use of the heat recovery system as for a “tubular” photovoltaic module. The examiner does not understand the preamble to impose any further structural requirements that further limit the claimed heat recovery system, and the drawings and other parts of the applicant’s disclosure do not suggest that the shape of the photovoltaic module itself presents any specific additional requirements to the overall design of the claimed invention. Nonetheless, the term “tubular” is a definition of shape of the photovoltaic module. Skilled artisans would find it prima facie obvious to modify the shapes of components such as the photovoltaic module because a change in shape is a matter only of design choice, and because there is no information or other common-sense logic that would lead a person to believe that the shape of the photovoltaic module is material to the design or function of the claimed heat recovery system.
Regarding claim 4, modified YIN teaches the heat recovery system 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the composite wall 110 is composed of aluminum nitride (AlN) and a polymer (YIN, paras. 22-24 teach AlN and HDPE).
Regarding claim 5, modified YIN teaches the heat recovery system 100 as claimed in claim 4, wherein the polymer is selected from high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), acrylonitrile butadiene (ABS), or a combination thereof (YIN, paras. 22-24 teach AlN and HDPE).
Regarding claim 7, modified YIN teaches the heat recovery system 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the thermal conductivity of the composite wall 110 gradually decreases from the inner surface 112 to the outer surface 114 (“volume fraction of aluminum is rapidly reduced through the thickness of the layer,” para. 21, which the examiner determines would in turn gradually decrease the thermal conductivity).
Regarding claim 8, modified YIN teaches the heat recovery system 100 as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose expressly that the heat extracting coil 130 carries a working fluid selected from butane, ammonia, and R32 (ammonia may be used as the working fluid in order to maintain sub-zero temperatures, WEINSTEIN, col. 8, ll. 48-50).
Regarding claim 9, modified YIN teaches the heat recovery system 100 as claimed in claim 8, wherein the heat extracting coil 130 is fluidically coupled with a pump 140 for circulation of the working fluid (YIN, para. 26, Fig. 4 teaches a pump to circulate a working fluid).
Regarding claim 10, modified YIN teaches the heat recovery system 100 as claimed in claim 1, wherein the heat extracting coil 130 is thermally coupled to a heat exchanger 150 (WEINSTEIN teaches a heat exchanger comprising tank 57, liquid 60, and coil 55, Fig. 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YIN (US 2012/0097217 A1) in view of WEINSTEIN (US 3,990,914 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CHOU (US 2018/0281244 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified YIN teaches the heat recovery system 100 as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose that the composite wall 110 is composed of mica and a polymer (YIN discloses aluminum nitride and polymer).
CHOU teaches thermally conductive composite materials comprising inorganic components and polymer components. CHOU describes aluminum nitride and mica as equivalent high thermal conductive inorganic materials (para. 31).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify YIN and replace aluminum nitride with mica because these are equivalent high thermal conductive inorganic materials as taught by CHOU and would be prima facie obvious as simple substitutions of known materials to obtain entirely predictable and unsurprising results. No skilled artisan would be surprised to find any remarkable difference between employing aluminum nitride versus mica in the composite material of the other prior art references. MPEP 2143(B).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner