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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 9 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" 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).
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "typically" 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 Interpretation
The examiner has elected to treat the limitation following the words “such as” and “typically” as optional.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 2021/0280727).
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a window for a building or structure (see figs. 9-11, para [0039], [0155]), the window comprising:
a first panel (outer glass pane 1108) (shown in fig. 11) being at least largely transmissive for visible light (see para [0163]) and having opposite first (outer surface of 1108) and second (inner surface 1122 of pane 1108) major surfaces (shown in fig. 11), the first major surface being a light receiving surface (see para [0155]), the first panel comprising a luminescent material and/or a light scattering material (one or more optical layers 1114-1118) (see para [0157]- [0160]);
a plurality of solar cells (1104) facing the second major surface of the first panel (1108) and being positioned along and in proximity of an edge of the first panel (shown in figs. 9 and 11, see para [0155]); and
a frame (sash 1112) supporting the first panel directly or indirectly (para [0156]);
wherein the first major surface of the first panel is directly exposed to a space that is exterior to the window (see para [0155]) (see fig. 11, para [0155]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 2, Jung discloses the window of claim 1, wherein the plurality of solar cells faces the second major surface (1122) of the first panel (1108) directly (shown in fig. 12, para [0155]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 3, Jung discloses a window of claim 1 wherein the first panel is positioned such that light originating from outside of the building or structure is received by the receiving surface of the first panel before transmitting to other portions of the window (shown in fig. 11, see para [0155]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 6, Jung discloses a window of claim 1, wherein the first panel comprises the luminescent material (1114-1118) (shown in fig. 12, see para [0155]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 7, Jung discloses a window of claim 6, wherein the luminescent material is arranged to convert incident light in wavelength ranges in which the solar cells have a relatively low external quantum efficiency (EQE) into fluorescence radiation in higher-EQE wavelength ranges (see abstract, para [0002], [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Jung discloses a window of claim 1, wherein the solar cells are positioned between a portion of the frame and the first panel in the proximity of an edge of the first panel (shown in fig. 12, see para [0155]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 11, Jung discloses a window of claim 1, wherein the solar cells cover portions of the frame structure (shown in fig. 12, see para [0155]-[0163]).
Regarding claim 14, Jung discloses a window of claim 1, wherein the solar cells are positioned at an inclined orientation relative to the second major surface of the first panel (shown in figs. 10-12, see para [0155]-[0163]).
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2021/0280727) as applied to claim 1, and as follows.
Regarding claim 12, Jung discloses a window of claim 1, wherein the solar cells are spaced apart from the first panel (shown in fig. 11, para [0155]).
As Jung discloses choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions i.e., spaced apart from the first panel as shown in fig. 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Jung discloses a window of claim 1, further comprising a second panel positioned parallel to the first panel, and wherein the frame and the solar cells are positioned between the first and second panels (shown in figs. 9-12, see para [0146], [0150], [0155]-[0163], i.e., solar panel 9081 and 9082 are parallel to each other).
As Jung discloses choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e., a plurality of parallel solar panels as shown in fig. 9, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 4-5, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lambricht et al. (US 2018/0342638).
Regarding claim 4, Jung discloses the window of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first panel comprises parallel first and second panel portions which are laminated together and wherein the first major surface is a surface of the first panel portion and the second major surface is a surface of the second panel portion.
Lambricht is analogous art to Jung as Lambricht discloses a window comprising a first panel (V1, F, V2), a second panel (V2’ and S), a gas filled layer between the panels (L) and a solar cell (C3) in the space between the panels (see fig. 8, para [0086]-[0087]).
Lambricht discloses wherein the first panel (V1, F, V2) comprises parallel first and second panel portions (V1 and V2) which are laminated together and wherein the first major surface is a surface of the first panel portion and the second major surface is a surface of the second panel portion (shown in fig. 8, para [0086]-[0087] and [0098]). Lambricht discloses a single panel portion and a first and second panel portion (see fig. 1 and fig. 8) are alternatives.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., the laminated panel comprising a first panel portion and a second panel portion as disclosed by Lambricht) for another known device (i.e., the panel comprising a first panel portion as disclosed by Jung and Lambricht), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a first panel that transmits light)
Regarding claim 5, modified Jung discloses the window of claim 4 wherein the first and second panel portions are laminated together using a sandwich layer comprising polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (see Lambricht para [0098])
Regarding claim 8, modified Jung discloses a window of claim 5 wherein the first panel comprises the luminescent material, and wherein the luminescent material is embedded in the PVB (see Lambricht para [0022]-[0023], [0097]-[0098] and [0105]).
Regarding claim 13, Jung discloses a window of claim 1, wherein the solar cells are positioned directly facing, the second major surface of the first panel (shown in fig. 12, [0155]-[0163]).
Jung does not disclose wherein the solar cells are positioned parallel to the second major surface of the first panel.
Lambricht discloses wherein the solar cells are positioned parallel to and directly facing the second major surface of the first panel.
As Lambricht and Jung disclose choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions i.e., parallel to or inclined to the second major surface of the first panel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Lambricht et al. (US 2018/0342638) and Lake Washington Windows (Low E-Glass Explained).
Regarding claim 20, Jung discloses a window of claim 19, but does not disclose wherein the second panel comprises a coating such as a low-emissivity coating providing high reflectivity for wavelengths between 300 to approximately 420 nm, and typically also for approximately 750 to approximately 1000 nm and/or above.
Lambricht is analogous art to Jung (see discussion claim 4). Lambricht discloses the second panel comprises a low-emissivity coating (see para [0074]).
Lake Washington Windows discloses low emissivity glass is designed to reflect UV and near infrared wavelengths, the wavelengths reflected is a result effective variable (see page 4).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
The Court has held combining prior art elements (i.e., the solar windows of Jung and Lambricht with the reflective e-glass of Lambricht) according to known methods as disclosed by Lambricht) wherein the result is predictable (i.e., a solar window that transmits visible light).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergstrom et al. (US 2019/0273171).
Regarding claim 9, Jung discloses a window of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an edge portion of the first panel comprises a reflective coating, such as a metallic coating.
Bergstrom is analogous art to Jung as Bergstrom is directed to a solar window (see para [0001]). Bergstrom discloses a first panel (light transparent panel 10) (see para [0031] and a luminescent layer (20) (see para [0028]). In one embodiment (see fig. 2a), Bergstrom discloses an edge portion of the first panel (10) comprises a reflective coating (see para [0032]-[0034]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine known prior art elements (i.e., the solar window of Jung with the reflective edge elements of Bergstrom) according to known methods (as disclosed by Bergstrom) where the result is predictable (i.e., a solar window with reflected light).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lyford et al. (US 2021/0265942).
Regarding claim 15, Jung discloses a window of claim 1, wherein the plurality of solar cells includes a first series of solar cells and the window comprises a second series of solar cells (shown in fig. 9, see para [0146]) (see obviousness discussion for claim 12). Jung does not disclose
Lyford is analogous art to Jung as Lyford is directed to a solar window (see abstract and para [0010]). Lyford discloses a first panel (12) and a second panel (14) and a luminescent layer (see para [0040]-[0041]). Lyford discloses the solar window (shown in fig. 1) has a first set of solar cells (38) and a second set of solar cells (38), wherein the second set of solar cells (28) is positioned along the first set of the solar cells and is positioned adjacent the first set of the solar cells (38).
As is known in the art (see MPEP § 2144.03), additional solar cells result in more energy production, while reducing the size of the unobstructed window, resulting in the engineer making a trade off between the amount of energy, and the size of the unobstructed window.
It would be obvious to a person to add additional solar cells positioned along the first set of solar cells and adjacent to the firs set of solar cells to produce additional energy.
Regarding claim 16, modified Jung discloses the window of claim 15, discloses the solar cells of the first series (30) are positioned parallel to, and are directly facing, the second major surface of the first panel (shown in Lyford fig. 1, see para [0046]).
Modified Jung does not disclose wherein the solar cells of the second series have a same orientation as the solar cells of the first series and are positioned parallel to, and are directly facing, the second major surface of the first panel.
Lyford discloses a third set of solar cells which are parallel to, and are directly facing the second major surface of the first panel. The number of solar cells is a trade-off between energy produced and percentage of unobstructed window (see discussion of claim 15).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add an additional row of solar cells with the same orientation as the first set parallel to and facing the second major surface of the first panel to increase absent criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, modified Jung discloses a window of claim 15, wherein the solar cells of the second series (Lyford 28, Jung 9081-3) do not have the same orientation as the solar cells of the first series (30) and are positioned at an inclined orientation relative to the second major surface of the first panel (see Lyford para [0046]-[0047] and Jung para [0146]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jung discloses a window of claim 17 wherein the solar cells of the first series (Lyford 30) are oriented parallel to the second major surface of the first panel and are positioned between portions of the frame and the first panel (see Lyford para [0040]-[0041] and [0046]-[0047]) and wherein the solar cells of the second series (Lyford 28 and/or Jung 9081-3) are directly adjacent the solar cells of the first series and are positioned in an orientation that is inclined relative to the first panel (shown in Lyford fig. 1 and Jung fig. 9, see Lyford para [0040]-[0047] and Jung para [0155]-[0163]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. and Lyford et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Lambricht et al. (US 2018/0342638).
Regarding claim 16, Jung modified in view of Lyford discloses the window of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the solar cells of the second series have a same orientation as the solar cells of the first series and are positioned parallel to, and are directly facing, the second major surface of the first panel.
Lambricht is analogous art to Jung (see discussion of claim 4). Further, Lambricht discloses wherein the solar cells (of Jung, i.e. the second set of Jung as modified by Lyford) are positioned directly facing, the second major surface of the first panel.
As Lambricht and Jung disclose choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions i.e., parallel to or inclined to the second major surface of the first panel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143). (See also discussion of claim 13).
When the set of solar cells are modified by Lambricht and the solar window of modified Jung is further modified by Lyford by adding a first set of solar cells (above the modified solar cells of Jung), modified Jung discloses wherein the solar cells of the second series have a same orientation as the solar cells of the first series and are positioned parallel to, and are directly facing, the second major surface of the first panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carter et al. (US 2017/0288080).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721