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 Objections
Claims 2-11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is noted that while this amendment has been entered, it does not comply with MPEP 714 or 37 CRF 1.121(c)(2) because claim 12 has the wrong claim identifier ("Original" instead of "Withdrawn").
Claims 2-11 and 13 recite “the structural composite material of claim 1.” However, claim 1 is directed to “a structural composite panel,” such that it is suggested to amend the limitation to “the structural composite panel of claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "a portion of the first layer having no structural reinforcement" in lines 2-3. The same limitation has already been recited in claim 1 from which claim 8 depends upon. It is unclear if there is another portion of the first layer having no structural reinforcement that is being referenced by the claim. Clarification is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites “the structural reinforcement includes fiber reinforcement.” However, claim 1 from which claim 2 depends upon recites “load-bearing fiber reinforcement” already, such that it appears claim 1 already recites the structural reinforcement to be fiber reinforcement. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites “the at least one photovoltaic cell is disposed on a portion of the first layer having no structural reinforcement.” However, claim 1 from which claim 8 depends upon recites the same feature already.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gayer et al. (DE 10 2022 003311; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Gayer discloses a structural composite panel (see Figure 2), comprising:
a first layer (support group 3) including a resin (fiber reinforced plastic composite material 3.2; [0043]); and
structural reinforcement (fiber; [0048]),
wherein a portion of the first layer includes the structural reinforcement encapsulated in the resin (where there are fibers in the resin. It is disclosed the fibers are oriented in a 0/90 orientation with 300 g/m2 basis weight ([0048]), such that there would be openings in the layer in areas without fibers), and a portion of the first layer includes no structural reinforcement (openings, as set forth above);
at least one photovoltaic cell (4) disposed on the portion of the first layer that includes no structural reinforcement (see Figure 1), wherein the portion of the first layer on which the at least one photovoltaic cell is disposed is free of load-bearing fiber reinforcement (the photovoltaic cells would be disposed on the first layer, which includes portions with and without structural reinforcement, as set forth above);
a resin layer including the resin (1.2 and 1.3; it is disclosed epoxy resin can be used; [0045]), wherein the resin layer is disposed on the at least one photovoltaic cell (see Figures 1 and 2); and
a protective layer (clear coat 1.1) disposed on the resin layer (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Gayer discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural reinforcement includes fiber reinforcement (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 3, Gayer discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural reinforcement includes at least one of carbon, glass, or basalt ([0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Gayer discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural reinforcement is a fiber including at least one of glass, basalt, flax, hemp, pineapple, or cellulose ([0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Gayer discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural reinforcement is a structural fiber commingled with at least one of polycarbonate, nylon, polyethylene, or polypropylene (nylon fleece as flow aid layers 309 and 311 in the support group 3 ([0061]), where woven fabrics of the fiber can be used ([0017] and [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Gayer discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one photovoltaic cell is disposed on a portion of the first layer having no structural reinforcement (area without fibers).
Regarding claim 9, Gayer discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one photovoltaic cell is disposed on a portion of the first layer having both structural reinforcement and no structural reinforcement (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 11, Gayer discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the protective layer is a hard coat ([0029]).
Regarding claim 13, Gayer discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural composite panel is a vehicle roof panel ([0039]).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baudrit (US 2022/0278245).
Regarding claim 1, Baudrit discloses a structural composite panel (1; see Figure 6), comprising:
a first layer (support structure) including a resin (polymer matrix; [0028] and [0104]); and
structural reinforcement (fiber; [0104]),
wherein a portion of the first layer includes the structural reinforcement encapsulated in the resin, and a portion of the first layer includes no structural reinforcement (it is disclosed at least a portion of the back layer forming a support structure of the photovoltaic module includes reinforcing fibers surrounded by a polymer matrix ([0053]), where Figure 6 shows support structure having ribs 180 to be in only a portion of the back layer;
at least one photovoltaic cell (10) disposed on the portion of the first layer that includes no structural reinforcement (see Figure 6), wherein the portion of the first layer on which the at least one photovoltaic cell is disposed is free of load-bearing fiber reinforcement (as seen in Figure 6, the back layer comprises portions in which reinforcing fibers are located, which are the ribs 180; [0103] and [0104]);
a resin layer (injection molded layer on the front) including the resin ([0031]), wherein the resin layer is disposed on the at least one photovoltaic cell ([0031]); and
a protective layer disposed on the resin layer (superstrate).
Regarding claim 2, Baudrit discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural reinforcement includes fiber reinforcement (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 3, Baudrit discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural reinforcement includes at least one of carbon, glass, or basalt ([0053]).
Regarding claim 4, Gayer discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural reinforcement includes a reinforcing carbon fiber that carries electrical current from the at least one photovoltaic cell (it is disclosed the injection molded back layer can include reinforcing fibers such as carbon fibers ([0044]), which means the carbon fibers are capable of carrying electrical current from the at least one photovoltaic cell).
Regarding claim 5, Baudrit discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural reinforcement is a fiber including at least one of glass, basalt, flax, hemp, pineapple, or cellulose ([0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Baudrit discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one photovoltaic cell includes at least one of monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, a thin film, or indium tin oxide ([0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Baudrit discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one photovoltaic cell is disposed on a portion of the first layer having no structural reinforcement (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 9, Baudrit discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one photovoltaic cell is disposed on a portion of the first layer having both structural reinforcement and no structural reinforcement (as set forth above, see Figure 6, where reinforcement ribs as a support structure are provided only in certain areas throughout the span of the photovoltaic cells, where paragraph [0053] recites a portion of the back layer forming the support structure may include reinforcing fibers surrounded by polymer matrix).
Regarding claim 10, Baudrit discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the resin includes at least one of polycarbonate or acrylic (polycarbonate; [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Baudrit discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the protective layer is a hard coat (polymeric foil; [0029]).
Regarding claim 13, Baudrit discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the structural composite panel is a vehicle roof panel ([0055]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gayer does not disclose the photovoltaic cell to be disposed on a portion of the first layer that is free of load-bearing fiber reinforcement because Gayer discloses continuous load-bearing laminate layers and that any regions “without fibers” in Gayer are limited to gaps between solar cells or flow features and do not constitute a support region of the first layer that is “free of load-bearing fiber reinforcement” as recited.
However, it is unclear why Gayer discloses a continuous load-bearing laminate and the instant specification does not when the instant specification discloses in paragraph [0001] that the invention is directed to “a fiber reinforced composite panel” and in paragraph [0005] that “a structural composite panel is provided. The structural composite panel includes a first layer, at least one photovoltaic cell disposed on the first layer, a resin layer including the resin, and a protective layer disposed on the resin layer. The first layer includes a resin and structural reinforcement.” Nowhere does the instant specification discloses the first layer or structural composite panel to not be a continuous load-bearing laminate but instead refers to it as a reinforced composite panel.
Additionally, it is untrue that any regions “without fibers” in Gayer are limited to gaps between solar cells or flow features. As set forth in the Office Action above, Gayer discloses the fibers are oriented in a 0/90 orientation with 300 g/m2 basis weight, such that there would be openings in the layer in areas without fibers. It is noted that the claim has not required any particular size or dimension of the “portion that includes no structural reinforcement” and any area without the fiber would be free of load-bearing fiber reinforcement as recited.
Applicant argues that Baudrit does not teach or suggest at least one photovoltaic cell disposed on the portion of the first layer that includes no structural reinforcement, wherein the portion of the first layer on which the at least one photovoltaic cell is disposed is free of load-bearing fiber reinforcement because it is different in a fundamental structural and functional way because Baudrit does not disclose a load-bearing composite substrate.
However, first of all, Applicant argued Gayer discloses a continuous load-bearing laminate and does not read upon the claimed invention and then argues Baudrit does not teach a load-bearing composite substrate, such that it is unclear if Applicant is interpreting the claimed invention as load-bearing or not. Second of all, the claims do not require the structural composite panel to be load-bearing or not load-bearing in any way. Additionally, Applicant agrees that Baudrit discloses the reinforcement is provided in localized regions of a molded layer such as ribs in a back layer, such that Baudrit discloses the structural composite panel to comprise a portion of the first layer that includes no structural reinforcement and is free of load bearing fiber reinforcement as claimed.
Applicant’s further argument that the claim requires a specific spatial and structural relationship in which at least some of the photovoltaic cells are intentionally confined to a region that is both structurally distinct and completely free of load-bearing fiber reinforcement, establishing a different load-path architecture and eliminating any direct structural interface between the cells and reinforced regions was not found to be persuasive because it is not directed to the invention as claimed. Nowhere do the claims require any of the features asserted above.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be persuasive.
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights