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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-5 and 12-14 in the reply filed on 4/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 5/17/2022 and 7/6/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of DE102022112295.6 and DE102022116809.3 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 12 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.
Examiner submits “the solar module metallic conductor tracks” has no antecedent basis because no such track are previously recited in the claims. Examiner assumes Applicant is introducing such conductor tracks and thus should not have used antecedent language.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiaodong et al. (WO 2017/184079).
Examiner notes the current claim is incredibly broad and essentially reads on any glass lamination process. Despite the process apparently being directed to simultaneously heating and cooling for solar cell delamination, the independent claim does not recite solar module, and none of the claims specify separation nor that heating and cooling must occur at the same time. Thus, heating a glass sandwich to activate an interlayer and allowing the interlayer, and thus the layer around to cool to make a glass sandwich, anticipates current claim 1. 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 delaminating for solar module applications.
Regarding Claims 1, 2 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).
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) 3, 4, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiaodong et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Lee (US 2022/0194842).
Regarding Claim 3, 4 and 13, Xiaodong et al. teaches the method of Claim 2 as described above. Xiaodong et al. teaches only heat the adhesive occur via induction on metallic materials adjacent the adhesive and thus the bottom 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 layer 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiaodong et al. as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0090406, hereinafter “Lee2”).
Regarding Claim 12, Xiaodong et al. teaches the method of Claim 2 as described above. Xiaodong et al. teaches the bottom component, i.e. base body, has 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).A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have understood that the metallic electrodes on the solar cell surface disclosed in Xiaodong et al. are consistent with conventional silver 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] on the layers opposite ethe glass are well-known to connect the solar cell in series (See Lee2, Fig. 17 and page 2, paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have “conductive track on the base layer for either of the above reasons.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights