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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 8/31/2026. Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled and thus all rejections are withdrawn with respect to these claims. Claims 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cells in Xiaodong et al. (WO 2017/184079) are completely covered by EVA layers [608],[610] and heated. Applicant argues it is impossible to cool the cells [604]. Although this may be true is cooling were specified as being simultaneous to heating, this is not currently claimed, and further, the Examiner interprets layer [606], not the cells, as the base body. Layer [606] is not directly heated and its lower side is cooled in a fluid, thus satisfying the process
With regard to Lee2 (US 2015/0090406), the method of heating therein is irrelevant. The citations not located in Lee2 were citations clearly attributed to Xiaodong et al., not Lee2. Lee2 is merely utilized to show the structure of conductive ribbons as reasonably being conductive tracks that connect the cells. These tracks are on the base body [606] and bonded thereto via the lower adhesive layer [610]. Nothing in the claim recites the base body is a photovoltaic cell and nothing requires the conductor tracks to be physically touching the base body. Any conductive ribbons over and bonded to the layer [606], i.e. the base body, are reasonably “on” the upper surface of said layer.
Examiner notes the claim does not recite any delamination or recovery of parts at all and merely teach broad heating and cooling of specific layers, such heating and cooling not even mandated as being simultaneous.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: At the end of Claim 1, the clause is grammatically incorrect and should be amended: “wherein the solar module metallic conductor tracks
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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 invention(s) 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiaodong et al. (WO 2017/184079) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0090406, hereinafter “Lee2”).
Examiner notes despite the process apparently being directed to simultaneously heating and cooling for solar cell delamination, the claim does not recite heating and cooling must occur at the same time. Examiner has addressed the claim closer to concept to promote compact prosecution, but Applicant is highly encouraged to at least claim the critical elements of the invention such as active cooling simultaneously to heating, and then delaminating, which are still not currently recited.
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Xiaodong et al. teaches a method for delaminating a solar module, the solar module comprising
at least one base body [606] with a lower side and an upper side opposite the lower side, a cover layer [602] that is at least partially transparent to visible light, and at least one adhesive [608],[610] layer arranged between the cover layer [602] and the upper side, the method, the method comprising heating the adhesive layer to an adhesive layer temperature (See page 11, paragraph [0045] and Fig. 6, wherein induction heating, i.e. magnetic induction, heats the EVA layers [608],[610], i.e. the adhesive, to an adhesive layer temperature); and cooling the lower side of the at least one base body is cooled to a lower side temperature (See page 9, paragraph [0038], teaching the layers may be in a coolant, inherently cooling the outer layers relative to the adhesive, which is heated directly via the solar cells [604] therein; note even subsequently cooling after heating, which is inherent once heating ceases, reads on this cooling).
Xiaodong et al. teaches the cells [604] have an electrically conductive surface thereon heated via the induction so as to heat the adhesive (See page 6, paragraph [0019] and page 7, paragraph [0025]), said layer being a metallic back surface field or a metallic electrode (See page 9, paragraph [0033]), and there being conductive ribbons implied to connect the cells (See page 15, paragraph [0052]). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood that the metallic electrodes and copper ribbons on the solar cell surface disclosed in Xiaodong et al. are consistent with conventional finger and busbar conductor track structures, as this is the standard metallization architecture used in crystalline silicon solar cells to avoid the material costs of the solid layer. Further, conductive ribbons [150] connecting the cells are well-known to connect the solar cell in series (See Lee2, Figs. 1 and 17 and page 2, paragraph [0045], and note the conductive ribbon [150], which are taught in Xiaodong et al., as described above, run in tracks along the upper and lower side of the cells [110]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the conductive ribbons described in Xiaodong et al. as in Lee2 wherein they run side by side as tracks over and under the cells and between the cells. Doing so would have predictably been a suitable way to connect the cells in series with the conductive ribbons already described in Xiaodong et al. as a standard arrangement in solar cells. Examiner submits the ribbons so arranged are on the base body [606] in Xiadong et al. and bonded thereto with adhesive layer [610]. Nothing in the instant claims recites the conductor tracks are in direct contact with the base body [606] and being over the base body and bonded thereto with adhesive is reasonably “on” said base body and “cover” by cover layer [602].
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiaodong et al. and Lee2 as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Lee (US 2022/0194842).
Regarding Claim 3, 4 and 13, Xiaodong et al. and Lee2 teach the method of Claim 2 as described above. Xiaodong et al. teaches only heat provided to the adhesive occurs via induction on metallic materials adjacent the adhesive and thus the bottom surface of the base layer [606] is only heated via conduction through its thickness and is further cooled in water, which has a high specific heat, thus strongly implying the lower side of layer [606] is the same temperature as the water which likely would only marginally above ambient, and certainly far below 100 C, the boiling point of water. Further, heating EVA to up to 250 C is well known to separate layers in solar module (See Abstract, page 1, paragraph [0005], and page 3, paragraph [0055]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to heat the EVA in the 200-250 C range. Doing so would have predictably been suitable to cause delamination of EVA in solar modules.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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 W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
