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 § 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raab et al. (US PG Pub 2014/0137770; hereafter ‘770) in view of Murata (US PG Pub 2009/0275462; hereafter ‘462).
Claim 1: ‘770 is directed towards a method of coating a solar cell (a solar collector; see abstract; ¶s 4, 34, 35, & 74; and claim 18) comprising:
applying an aqueous solution of collagen hydrolysate to the solar cell (gelatine hydrolysate reads on collagen hydrolysate, abstract; ¶s 4, 34, 35, & 74 and claim 18; note that pork-rind gelatin is gelatin obtained from collagen in pork rinds, ¶ 46); and
allowing the aqueous solution to dry (see ¶s 4, 13, 34, 35, 65, & 74 and claim 18).
‘770 teaches that the coating can be used as a dirt-repelling or self-cleaning coating for solar cells (i.e. the coating would be applied to the outermost surface which is exposed to the sun; ¶ 4 & 35).
‘770 does not provide a structure for the solar collector.
However, ‘462, which is directed towards solar cells (title) teaches that solar cells can be constructed with a cover glass that faces the sun (¶ 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a solar cell structure as disclosed in ‘462 as the specific solar cell in ‘770 during the process of ‘770 because a solar cell with a cover glass that faces the sun is an art recognized configuration and would have predictably been suitable as the specific solar cell in ‘770.
Thus, the combination teaches applying a coating comprising collagen hydrolysate on the cover glass of a solar collector.
The combination teaches the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach coating increases the efficiency of the solar collector. Since the same materials are applied to the same substrate; it is reasonable to presume the same results are observed from the coating. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes which would result in the claimed property.
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 2: The rejection of claim 1 relies on a coating applied to a solar collector.
Claim 2 is contingent on selection of “a solar module” in claim 1 and thus the limitations are contingent limitations and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation are not required. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
Claim 3: ‘770 teaches the coating can be applied by pouring (¶ 34).
Claim 4: ‘770 does not teach a specific concentration of the collagen hydrolysate in the final coating solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a concentration within the claimed range because differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 5: 770 does not teach a specific concentration of the collagen hydrolysate in the final coating solution.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a concentration within the claimed range because differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 6: The collagen hydrolysate is produced by chemical hydrolysis of collagen-containing starting materials (¶ 16).
Claim 7: The collagen hydrolysate has an average molecular weight of 500-9000 Da (¶ 15).
Claim 8: The solution also comprises gelatin (abstract).
Gelatin is an amphoteric molecule which inherently acts as a amphoteric surfactant.
Claim 9: The solution also comprises gelatin (abstract).
Gelatin is an amphoteric molecule which inherently acts as a amphoteric surfactant.
Claim 10: The coating solution can comprise silver nanoparticles (i.e. a preservative; ¶ 31).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of ‘770 and ‘462 as applied above, and further in view of Baumgart et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0094417; hereafter ‘417).
Claims 11-12: As noted above, the coating of ‘770 is an aqueous self-cleaning coating.
‘770 does not teach repeated application of the coating or cleaning prior to each application.
However, ‘417, which is also directed towards self-cleaning compositions (title), teaches that it is known in the art of these types of coatings to remove (i.e. cleaning the substrate) and reapply them to maintain the self-cleaning properties of the coatings (¶ 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to clean and reapply the coating of ‘770 multiple times because it is art recognized to remove and reapply self-cleaning coatings to maintain the self-cleaning properties of the coatings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘770 is directed towards use of the coating in solar cells and not on solar cells as argued; the Office does not find this argument because ‘770 is directed towards uses of a dispersion which reads on the claimed coating composition and teaches that the dispersion can be used to form a self-cleaning film (see ¶s 4 & 35) which are useable in the art of solar cells as films (¶s 4 & 35) and thus it is apparent that ‘770 teaches the use of said films as the exterior film given it is a self-cleaning film and thus it would have been obvious to apply said film on the exterior surface as discussed above.
In regards to applicant’s discussion of US Patent 7,939,749 (hereafter ‘749) which demonstrates that nanoparticles are indeed used within solar cells; applicant is advised that though ‘749 is probative to one use of nanoparticles in solar cells it does not overcome the fact that ‘770 teaches using the films formed by the dispersion as a self-cleaning film on solar cells
Applicant is advised of the additional non-relied upon prior art which demonstrates that it is known in the field to use nanoparticle-based self-cleaning coatings on solar cells:
US PG Pub 2007/0017567 – self-cleaning protective coatings for use with photovoltaic cells (title) wherein the coating comprises titania nanoparticles (¶ 44);
US PG Pub 2012/0009429 – self-cleaning coatings (title) comprising nanoparticles (¶ 59) for use on solar cells (¶ 49); and
US PG Pub 2014/0011013 – discloses a self-cleaning protective coating for solar cell glasses (see title, abstract, & ¶ 139) wherein the coating comprises titania nanoparticles (¶ 134).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights