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.
Claims 2 and 8 are 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. Specifically, claim 2 recites “the glass block” and “the thin-film solar cell,” however, it is unclear as to which of the previously recited “plurality of glass blocks” and “plurality of thin-film solar cells” the limitations “the glass block” and “the thin-film solar cell” refer, or as to whether the limitations “the glass block” and “the thin-film solar cell” refer to structures in addition to the previously recited “plurality of glass blocks” and “plurality of thin-film solar cells.” Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 2.
Claims 4 and 5 are 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. Specifically, claim 4 recites “wherein the thin-film solar cell is configured for electrodes with a conductive tape structure to be bonded at both ends, or for electrodes to be bonded by ultrasonic bonding or thermal bonding,” however, it is unclear as to which of the previously recited plurality of thin-film solar cells the limitation “the thin-film solar cell” refers, or whether the limitation “the thin-film solar cell” refers to a thin-film solar cell in addition to the previously recited plurality of thin-film solar cells. Additionally, the structure required in order for the thin-film solar cell to be configured for electrodes with a conductive tape structure to be bonded at both ends, or configured for electrodes to be bonded by ultrasonic bonding or thermal bonding, is unclear. Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 4.
Claim 5 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. Specifically, claim 5 recites “the aligned thin-film solar cells,” however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 13 are 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. Specifically, claims 7 and 13 recite the limitation “the thin-film solar cell,” however, it is unclear as to which of the previously recited plurality of thin-film solar cells the limitation refers, or whether the limitation refers to a thin-film solar cell in addition to the previously recited plurality of thin-film solar cells.
Claim 8 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. Specifically, claim 8 recites “the thin-film solar cell” and “the glass block,” however, it is unclear as to which of the previously recited plurality of thin-film solar cells and previously recited plurality of glass blocks the limitations “the thin-film solar cell” and “the glass block” refer. Additionally, it is unclear if the limitations “the thin-film solar cell” and “the glass block” refer to structures in addition to the previously recited plurality of thin-film solar cells and previously recited plurality of glass blocks.
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. Specifically, claim 12 recites “the thin-film solar cell” in line 1, however, the thin-film solar cell of the previously recited plurality of thin-film solar cells to which the limitation “the thin-film solar cell” refers is unclear. Further, it is unclear as to whether the limitation “the thin-film solar cell” refers to an additional thin-film solar cell in addition to the previously recited thin-film solar cells. Additionally, the structure required to satisfy the limitation requiring the thin-film solar cell to be configured for electrodes with a conductive tape structure to be bonded at both ends is unclear. Further, claim 12 recites the limitation “the aligned thin-film solar cells” in lines 3 and 4 of the claim, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitken et al. (US 2014/0158201) in view of Kim (KR 101988345 B1, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Aitken discloses a method of manufacturing a solar cell ([0041], [0115]) comprising: forming a lower transparent resin layer ([0097], [0111] discloses a wafer encapsulant at least partially surrounding 16) on a lower cover glass ([0111], [0112]; 40 in Fig. 8); disposing a plurality of thin-film ([0114]) solar cells ([0111], photovoltaic wafers 16) on the lower transparent resin layer ([0111], photovoltaic wafers in relation to wafer encapsulant between 40 and 50 in Fig. 8); forming an upper transparent resin layer on top of the plurality of thin-film solar cells ([0111], photovoltaic wafers in relation to wafer encapsulant between 40 and 50 in Fig. 8); disposing an upper cover glass on the upper transparent resin layer to configure the solar cell ([0111], [0112]; 50 in Fig. 8).
Aitken does not explicitly disclose disposing a plurality of glass blocks on the lower transparent resin layer.
Kim discloses a method of manufacturing a solar cell and further discloses a plurality of glass blocks ([0034]; 110 in Figures 1 and 2; it is noted that the horizontal and vertical sections of 110 satisfy the limitation requiring a plurality of glass blocks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of glass blocks, as disclosed by Kim, between the cells of Aitken, because as taught by Kim, the light scattering material in the transparent reinforced glass scatters sunlight in all directions, making it shine brightly ([0034]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of glass blocks, as disclosed by Kim, between the cells of Aitken, because the reinforced glass would provide structural support to the photovoltaic module of Aitken.
Modified Aitken discloses forming an upper transparent resin layer on top of the plurality of thin-film solar cells and the plurality of glass blocks, wherein the plurality of glass blocks are each disposed between the plurality of thin-film solar cells on the lower transparent resin layer (modified Aitken: 110 in Figures 1 and 2 of Kim in relation 16 and the wafer encapsulant described in [0111] and depicted in Fig. 8 of Aitken).
With regard to the limitations “first step,” “second step,” “third step,” and “fourth step,” selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Regarding claim 2, modified Aitken discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Aitken further discloses inserting a transparent resin between the glass block and the thin-film solar cell (Aitken – [0111] disclose 16 at least partially surrounded by the wafer encapsulant between 40 and 50 in Fig. 8; the disclosed encapsulation necessarily results in the transparent resin ([0097]) between the thin-film solar cells 16 of Aitken and the glass block as set forth in the modification of Aitken by Kim above).
With regard to the limitation “the second step,” selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Regarding claim 4, modified Aitken discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Aitken further discloses the thin-film solar cell is configured for electrodes with a conductive tape structure to be bonded at both ends, or for electrodes to be bonded by ultrasonic bonding or thermal bonding (it is noted that the disclosed thin-film solar cells are necessarily configured for electrodes; the limitation does not require electrodes, a conductive tape structure, or ultrasonic or thermal bonding, instead the limitation requires the thin-film solar cell to be configured for electrodes …).
Regarding claim 5, modified Aitken discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Aitken further discloses electrodes at both ends of the thin-film solar cells are mutually connected in series (Aitken – [0110]).
With regard to the limitation “in the second step,” selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Regarding claim 9, Aitken discloses a solar cell ([0041], [0115]) comprising: a lower cover glass ([0111], [0112]; 40 in Fig. 8); a lower transparent resin layer ([0097], [0111] discloses a wafer encapsulant at least partially surrounding 16) formed on the lower cover glass ([0011] discloses a wafer encapsulant at least partially surrounding 16; Fig. 8) a plurality of thin-film ([0114]) solar cells ([0111], photovoltaic wafers 16) disposed on the lower transparent resin layer ([0111], photovoltaic wafers in relation to wafer encapsulant between 40 and 50 in Fig. 8); an upper transparent resin layer formed on top of the plurality of thin-film solar cells ([0111], photovoltaic wafers in relation to wafer encapsulant between 40 and 50 in Fig. 8); and an upper cover glass on the upper transparent resin layer ([0111], [0112]; 50 in Fig. 8).
Aitken does not explicitly disclose disposing a plurality of glass blocks each disposed between the plurality of thin-film solar cells on the lower transparent resin layer.
Kim discloses a method of manufacturing a solar cell and further discloses a plurality of glass blocks disposed between solar cells ([0034]; 110 in Figures 1 and 2; it is noted that the horizontal and vertical sections of 110 satisfy the limitation requiring a plurality of glass blocks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of glass blocks, as disclosed by Kim, between the thin-film solar cells of Aitken, because as taught by Kim, the light scattering material in the transparent reinforced glass scatters sunlight in all directions, making it shine brightly ([0034]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of glass blocks, as disclosed by Kim, between the thin-film solar cells of Aitken, because the reinforced glass would provide structural support to the photovoltaic module of Aitken.
Modified Aitken discloses forming an upper transparent resin layer on top of the plurality of thin-film solar cells and the plurality of glass blocks, wherein the plurality of glass blocks are each disposed between the plurality of thin-film solar cells on the lower transparent resin layer (modified Aitken: 110 in Figures 1 and 2 of Kim in relation 16 and the wafer encapsulant described in [0111] and depicted in Fig. 8 of Aitken).
Regarding claim 11, modified Aitken discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Aitken further discloses the lower transparent resin layer and the upper transparent resin layer are composed of a thermosetting resin (Aitken – [0097] discloses epoxy resins).
Regarding claim 12, modified Aitken discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “the thin-film solar cell is configured for electrodes with a conductive tape structure to be bonded at both ends, or for electrodes to be bonded by ultrasonic bonding or thermal bonding, such that the electrodes at both ends of the aligned thin-film solar cells are mutually connected in parallel or in series,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Additionally, the limitation “the thin-film solar cell is configured for electrodes with a conductive tape structure to be bonded at both ends, or for electrodes to be bonded by ultrasonic bonding or thermal bonding, such that the electrodes at both ends of the aligned thin-film solar cells are mutually connected in parallel or in series,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, modified Aitken discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Aitken further discloses the thin-film solar cell is composed of a CIGS thin film solar cell (Aitken – [0115]).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitken et al. (US 2014/0158201) in view of Kim (KR 101988345 B1, see attached machine translation) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Detje et al. (US 2010/0263720).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, modified Aitken discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Aitken does disclose the outer protective layers comprise glass sheets and may optionally further comprise polymer, organic, or inorganic coatings, surface modifications, or other modifications to make them suitable for use in photovoltaic applications (Aitken - [0056]), and further discloses a functional layer can be disposed on the glass substrate of the first outer protection layer, the functional layer can be selected from an anti-glare, anti-smudge, a self-cleaning layer, an anti-reflection layer, an anti-fingerprint layer, an ultra-violet protection layer, an optically scattering layer, and combinations thereof (Aitken - [0101]); modified Aitken does not explicitly disclose the lower cover glass or the upper cover glass has an uneven structure formed on a surface thereof.
Detje discloses a solar cell and further discloses texture of a glass panel reduces reflections of a radiation in the area of the top face of the glass panel, and therefore, reduce associated reflection losses ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to texture, as disclosed by Detje, the lower or upper cover glass of modified Aitken, because as taught by Detje, texture of a glass panel reduces reflections of a radiation in the area of the top face of the glass panel, and therefore, reduce associated reflection losses ([0054]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aitken et al. (US 2014/0158201) in view of Kim (KR 101988345 B1, see attached machine translation) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 2018/0337631).
Regarding claim 6, modified Aitken discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Aitken does disclose standard PV module lamination equipment and techniques to fix the lower cover glass (Aitken – [0116]), modified Aitken does not explicitly disclose fixing the lower cover glass, on which the plurality of thin-film solar cells and the plurality of glass blocks are disposed, using high-temperature tape, a fixing housing, or brackets.
Anderson discloses a PV module lamination process which includes the use of brackets ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use brackets, as disclosed by Anderson, in the lamination process of modified Aitken, because as evidenced by Anderson, the use of brackets in a PV module lamination process amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using brackets in the PV module lamination process of modified Aitken based on the teaching of Anderson.
With regard to the limitation “in the second step,” selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Regarding claim 8, modified Aitken discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Aitken does disclose standard PV module lamination equipment and techniques to bond the lower cover glass, the thin-film solar cell, the glass block, and the upper cover glass by the lower transparent resin layer, the upper transparent resin layer, and the transparent resin (Aitken – [0116]); modified Aitken does not explicitly disclose the solar cell undergoes vacuum heat treatment.
Anderson discloses a method of manufacturing a solar cell and further discloses the use of vacuum heat treatment in a PV module lamination process ([0098] discloses vacuum, temperature and time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the use of vacuum heat treatment, as disclosed by Anderson, in the PV module lamination process of modified Aitken, because as evidenced by Anderson, the use of vacuum heat treatment in a PV module lamination process amounts to the use of a known method in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a vacuum heat treatment in the PV module lamination process of modified Aitken based on the teaching of Anderson.
With regard to the limitation “a fifth step,” selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.) MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Jeff Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726