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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barton et al. (US 4,832,755).
Regarding claim 1, Barton discloses a device (solar array, figures 4-6, 3:67-5:35) comprising:
one or more photovoltaic modules (solar cell module 12 formed by plurality of solar cells 20, see fig. 4 and 6, 3:62-64); and
a first transparent layer (substrate 14 that is made of glass, see fig. 6 and claim 2) and a second transparent layer (superstrate 14 that is made of glass, fig. 6 and claim 2) encapsulating the one or more photovoltaic modules (12) (see fig. 6);
wherein the first transparent layer (10) and second transparent layer (14) are bonded together (at the edges and glass bonding area 26 and 36, see fig. 6 and 4:51-5:5) to form a hermetic seal around the one or more photovoltaic modules (12) (see fig. 6).
Barton explicitly discloses that the use of the first and second transparent layers (10 and 14) are bonded together by application of heat (4:51-5:5), and thus read on instant claimed welding.
Alternatively, the limitation to "the first transparent layer and second transparent layer are bonded together" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the device of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Regarding claim 2, Barton further discloses that the first transparent layer (10) and the second transparent layer (14) comprise glass (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation to "rolled glass" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the device of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation to " the hermetic seal is formed using a fast pulse laser capable of non-linear optical absorption" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the device of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Regarding claim 5, Barton further discloses the first transparent layer (10) or the second transparent layer (14) comprises diffused SiOx, (4:62-5:5), which is a well-known antireflective material.
Regarding claim 6, Barton further discloses that the first and second transparent layers (10 and 14) each comprises ribbed or embossed optical features (26 or 36, see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Barton further discloses that the device does not comprise a polymer sealant between the first transparent layer (10) and the second transparent layer (14) (see fig. 6 and 3:67-5:35).
Regarding claim 8, there is no structure and material different between the solar cell of Barton and that of instant claim, and thus the device lifecycle is greater than or equal to 30 years as in the case of the instant application.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation regarding "a welded" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the device of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Regarding claim 10, Barton further discloses that the first transparent layer (10) and the one or more photovoltaic modules (12) are separated by a gap less than or equal to 200 µm (the substrate 10 is in direct contact with the solar cell 20 at integral cell support 28, and thus the distance between substrate 10 and solar cell 20 is 0 µm at integral cell support 28, see fig. 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721