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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 17, 18 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham (US 2007/0144578) in view of Johnston (US 2013/0163137).
With regard to claim 1, Cunningham, in Fig. 3 teaches a solar module, the solar module having at least one photovoltaic cell (13) for converting radiant energy into electrical energy and two planar elements (17 & 18) made of plastic (paragraph 0019), which surround the at least one photovoltaic cell in a sandwich-like manner (paragraph 0025), the solar module having at least one positive contact element and at least one negative contact element for tapping an electrical output voltage of the solar module (22, paragraph 0026), the positive contact element and the negative contact element being arranged at least partially between the two planar elements and each having at least one electrically uninsulated exposed contacting portion (as seen in Fig. 3, a portion of conductive ribbon 22 is placed between the planar elements and a second portion of the ribbon extends external from the planar elements).
Cunningham does not teach that the device is operable in an extra-low voltage range below 60V, and wherein an output voltage limiter is associated with the solar module, wherein the output voltage limiter is adapted to limit the output voltage to an extra-low voltage below 60V and/or wherein the number of photovoltaic cells is selected in such a way that the output voltage remains in the extra-low voltage range below 60V.
Johnston, in Figure 4, teaches a circuit and method for limiting voltages of photovoltaic strings wherein the device is operable in an extra-low voltage range below 60V, and wherein an output voltage limiter is associated with the solar module, wherein the output voltage limiter is adapted to limit the output voltage to an extra-low voltage below 60V and/or wherein the number of photovoltaic cells is selected in such a way that the output voltage remains in the extra-low voltage range below 60V (as taught in paragraphs 0037-0039, a voltage limiting ensures that the voltage across the photocell is limited to a low voltage such as 40V, which is a range below 60V).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cunningham with Johnston, by limiting the voltage across the positive and negative terminals of the device taught by Cunningham with a voltage limiter as taught by Johnston, for the purpose of ensuring that a high voltage does not damage the PV string or the load.
With regard to claims 6, 17 & 18, Cunningham in view of Johnston discloses the device of claim 1, and further discloses that an area between the two planar elements is filled with a filler (as seen in fig. 3, there is a filler between the planar elements of Cunningham) (re claim 6), the two planar elements are symmetrical at least in a portion in which the at least one photovoltaic cell is arranged (as seen in Fig. 3 of Cunningham) (re claim 17), wherein the two planar elements are completely symmetrical (as seen in Fig. 3 of Cunningham) (re claim 18).
With regard to claim 22, Cunningham in view of Johnston discloses the claimed invention except that the two planar elements each comprise a thickness of at most 2.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set a thickness of the planar elements to ensure a structural integrity of the device while not being too heavy depending on the environment and application in which the device is used, 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham in view of Johnston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White (US 2018/0048146).
With regard to claim 3, Cunningham in view of Johnston teaches the device of claim 1.
Cunningham in view of Johnston does not teach that the output voltage limiter is part of a protection circuit, the protection circuit preferably further comprising a reverse polarity protection and/or an overload fuse as components, wherein at least one of the components of the protection circuit is connected to at least one of the contact elements.
White, in Figures 1B & 2A, teaches a photovoltaic string with a protection circuit, the protection circuit preferably further comprising a reverse polarity protection and an overload fuse as components (130 of Fig. 1B and 20A), wherein at least one of the components of the protection circuit is connected to at least one of the contact elements (paragraphs 0024-0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cunningham in view of Johnston with White, by including the protection circuitry of White into the device of Cunningham in view of Johnston, for the purpose of ensuring that an overcurrent does not damage the device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham in view of Johnston as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meyer (US 2015/0040981)..
With regard to claim 16, Cunningham in view of Johnston teaches the device of claim 1.
Cunningham in view of Johnston does not teach that the at least one photovoltaic cell comprises an edge protection which embraces the photovoltaic cell at its edges.
Meyer, in Figure 3, teaches a photovoltaic cell comprising an edge protection (330) which embraces the photovoltaic cell at its edges (paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cunningham in view of Johnston with Meyer, by incorporating an edge protection into the device of Cunningham as taught by Meyer, for the purpose of ensuring that the device is not damaged in transport or installation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12, 19, 21, 26-31, 33 , 36 & 37 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a solar module comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with at least one of the contacting portions, in addition to electrical contacting during tapping of the output voltage, is also adapted for mechanical contacting of the solar module, so that the solar module is configured to be mechanically arranged on a bearing structure via the at least one contacting portion.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a solar module comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with the positive contact element and the negative contact element are arranged within an area of the two planar elements and the solar module can be contacted via at least one bore passing through the solar module.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a solar module comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with the solar module comprising a plurality of wind release openings, which together define a wind permeable area within an area of the solar module, wherein the wind permeable area represents 1% to 60% of the area of the solar module.
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a solar module comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with the solar module comprising at least one wave-like reinforcing portion, in which at least the two planar elements are wave-like and/or wherein the solar module comprises an embedded reinforcing mesh.
Claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a solar module comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with a bearing structure electrically interconnecting and supporting the plurality of solar modules.
Claims 27-31, 33, 36 & 37 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because they depend on claim 26 which would also 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 SCOTT BAUER whose telephone number is (571)272-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm 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, THIENVU TRAN can be reached at (571)270-1276. 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.
/Scott Bauer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights