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 § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Sun et al. (US 2019/0371957)
Sun et al. teach a method of delaminating a photovoltaic module (abstract), the photovoltaic module comprising at least one solar cell comprising silicon (paragraph 0020) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (paragraphs 0040, 0041, 0047, 0063 and 0073), a first protective sheet, and a first encapsulant material positioned between the first surface of the at least one solar cell and the first protective sheet and fixing the first protective sheet to the at least one solar cell (paragraphs 0040, 0041 and 0057), the method comprising:
applying microwave radiation to the at least one solar cell to heat the at least one solar cell to a temperature above a melting or softening temperature of the first encapsulant material, wherein heat is transferred from the at least one solar cell to the first encapsulant material (paragraph 0055).
3. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Sun et al. (US 2019/0371957)
Sun et al. teaches a photovoltaic module delamination apparatus (paragraphs 0106-0108 and 0118-0120) comprising:
a holder for receiving a photovoltaic module (paragraphs 0106 and 0119, where it is considered inherent to the disclosure that an industrial microwave oven will inherently have some holder means for holding a photovoltaic module therein), the photovoltaic module comprising at least one solar cell having a first surface and a second surface (paragraphs 0040, 0041, 0047, 0063 and 0073), a first protective sheet, and a first encapsulant material positioned between the first surface of the at least one solar cell and the first protective sheet and fixing the first protective sheet to the at least one solar cell (paragraphs 0040, 0041 and 0057);
a microwave device (paragraphs 0106 and 0119); and
a controller configured to control the microwave device to apply microwave radiation to the at least one solar cell to heat the at least one solar cell to a temperature above a melting or softening temperature of the first encapsulant material (paragraphs 0055, 0106 and 0118), wherein heat is transferred from the at least one solar cell to the first encapsulant material (paragraph 0055).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed inventions absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
The teachings of claim 1 are as described above.
While not taught by Sun et al., the additional features of these claimed amounts to an obvious selection of microwave frequency to use to irradiate the photovoltaic modules with to generate heat in the one or more solar cells thereof. Generally, differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 – IIA).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA M SENGUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6019. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/SONYA M SENGUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights