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 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the other surface of the sealing member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai et al. (CN 111790738).
Regarding claim 1, Lai et al. (CN 111790738) teaches a method for processing a solar cell module (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-2), including:
removing a frame member from a solar cell module to obtain a frame-removed material (Paragraph 0053 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0060 lines 1-3);
crushing the frame-removed material to obtain a crushed material (Paragraph 0053 lines 5-8, Paragraph 0061 lines 1-5); and
electrostatically separating the crushed material (Paragraph 0056 lines 1-13),
wherein in the electrostatic separation, the crushed material is charged and separated in accordance with density and conductivity (Paragraph 0056 lines 1-13, Paragraph 0064 lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 2, Lai et al. (CN 111790738) teaches the method for processing a solar cell module according to claim 1,
wherein the solar cell module includes: a solar cell (Paragraph 0004 lines 1-3, “silicon”, “silver”); metal wiring extending from the solar cell (Paragraph 0004 line 3 “copper”); a sealing member made of resin for sealing the solar cell and the metal wiring (Paragraph 0004 lines 1-3 “plastic”, Paragraph 0006 lines 3-4 “EVA”); a resin protective member provided on one surface of the sealing member (Paragraph 0004 lines 1-3 “plastic”, Paragraph 0007 lines 9-10 “backplane”); a glass substrate provided on the other surface of the sealing member (Paragraph 0004 lines 1-3 “glass”, Paragraph 0014 lines 1-3); and a frame member surrounding these (Paragraph 0004 lines 1-3 “aluminum”, Paragraph 0014 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Lai et al. (CN 111790738) teaches the method for processing a solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein in the crushing, the crushed material is crushed to have a particle size of 5 mm or less (Paragraph 0052 lines 14-16, “5 mesh” screen).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (CN 111790738) in view of legal precedent.
Regarding claim 4, Lai et al. (CN 111790738) teaches the method for processing a solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein in the electrostatic separation, an applied voltage is set (Paragraph 0056 line 15).
Lai et al. (CN 111790738) states that the voltage is adjustable from 0 to 80 kV (Paragraph 0056 line 15), but lacks explicitly teaching an applied voltage is set to 18 kV or more and less than 30kV.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lai et al. (CN 111790738) to include an applied voltage is set to 18 kV or more and less than 30kV in order to provide a desired voltage best suited for the electrostatic separation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Regarding claim 5, Lai et al. (CN 111790738) teaches the method for processing a solar cell module according to claim 1,
wherein in the electrostatic separation, the crushed material is supplied to an electrostatic separator equipped with a grounded metal drum electrode (Fig. 1 #35, Paragraph 0064 lines 1-11), and a rotation speed of the grounded metal drum electrode is set (Paragraph 0056 lines 15-16).
Lai et al. (CN 111790738) states that the rotational speed of the grounded metal drum electrode is adjustable from 0 to 400 revolutions per minute (Paragraph 0056 lines 15-16), but lacks explicitly teaching a rotation speed set to 20 rpm or more and 60 rpm or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lai et al. (CN 111790738) to include a rotation speed set to 20 rpm or more and 60 rpm or less in order to provide a rotation speed best suited for the electrostatic separation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/variables are obvious and that said parameters can be recognized as result-effective variables whose optimization would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.IV (teaching that changes in size, proportion or shape of known elements are obvious); 2144.05 I.II (ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (CN 111790738) in view of Anatolie et al. (JP 2001046914). English translations of Anatolie et al. (JP 2001046914) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 6, Lai et al. (CN 111790738) teaches the method for processing a solar cell module according to claim 1,
wherein in the electrostatic separation, the crushed material is supplied to an electrostatic separator equipped with a grounded metal drum electrode (Fig. 1 #35, Paragraph 0064 lines 1-11).
Lai et al. (CN 111790738) lacks teaching wherein electrostatic separation is repeated one or more times for the separated material separated at each drop position from the grounded metal drum electrode.
Anatolie et al. (JP 2001046914) teaches a method for processing a solar cell module (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-6), wherein electrostatic separation is repeated one or more times for the separated material separated at each drop position from the grounded metal drum electrode (Paragraph 0015 lines 1-3).
Anatolie et al. (JP 2001046914) explains that materials with low charge that do not attract to the drum electrode pass through the intermediate material guiding opening and undergo electrostatic separation again in the next electrostatic separating device, and the separation accuracy can be improved by repeating this process (Paragraph 0015 lines 16-22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lai et al. (CN 111790738) to include wherein electrostatic separation is repeated one or more times for the separated material separated at each drop position from the grounded metal drum electrode as taught by Anatolie et al. (JP 2001046914) in order to improve the separation accuracy.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (CN 111790738) in view of Anatolie et al. (JP 2001046914) and further in view of Gates (US 2005/0061713).
Regarding claim 7, Lai et al. (CN 111790738) lacks teaching the method for processing a solar cell module according to claim 6, wherein in the electrostatic separation, a rotation speed of the grounded metal drum electrode in the electrostatic separation performed in a latter stage is set to be smaller than that in the electrostatic separation performed in a former stage, and/or a voltage applied to the grounded metal drum electrode in the electrostatic separation performed in the latter stage is set to be higher than that in the electrostatic separation performed in the former stage.
Gates (US 2005/0061713) teaches a method for processing a solar cell module (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-6), wherein in the electrostatic separation (Fig. 1 #14), a rotation speed of the grounded metal drum electrode in the electrostatic separation performed in a latter stage is set to be smaller than that in the electrostatic separation performed in a former stage (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0042 lines 1-9, Paragraph 0060 lines 1-5), and/or a voltage applied to the grounded metal drum electrode in the electrostatic separation performed in the latter stage is set to be higher than that in the electrostatic separation performed in the former stage (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0042 lines 1-9, Paragraph 0060 lines 1-5).
Gates (US 2005/0061713) explains that the roll speed is adjusted at each electrostatic separation stage, independently of other stages (Paragraph 0013 lines 1-5). Gates (US 2005/0061713) explains that in multi-stage machines, each new stage follows the last with material cascading from one stage to the next (Paragraph 0012 lines 7-10, Paragraph 0060 lines 1-5). Gates (US 2005/0061713) explains scenarios which result in lower separation efficiency, including when some of the particles bounce upon contact with the roll if it rotates at a relatively high speed, feed streams containing particles with low conductivity which may result in incomplete discharge, feed streams with a wide particle size variation, and feed streams containing fine particles which may be incompletely separated (Paragraph 0015 lines 1-13), and explains that slower rotation speeds and higher electrical field strengths improve the separation (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lai et al. (CN 111790738) to include wherein in the electrostatic separation, a rotation speed of the grounded metal drum electrode in the electrostatic separation performed in a latter stage is set to be smaller than that in the electrostatic separation performed in a former stage, and/or a voltage applied to the grounded metal drum electrode in the electrostatic separation performed in the latter stage is set to be higher than that in the electrostatic separation performed in the former stage as taught by Gates (US 2005/0061713) in order to improve the separation between materials which were incompletely separated in a previous electrostatic separation stage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights