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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites “the façade of the building” and while buildings all inherently have a façade, they do not necessarily only have one façade, thus it’s unclear which façade of the building is being referenced in claim 1. As such, the scope of claim 1 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-15 are also rendered indefinite by depending from indefinite claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the air inlet passage (8) is designed as a parallel structure” but it’s unclear what the scope of “a parallel structure” encompasses in this context as claim 3 does not recite how the air inlet passage is “parallel” or what it is parallel to. As such, the scope of claim 3 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “the height of the top surface of the inner straight wall of the air outlet passage is greater than that of the top surface of the inner inclined wall of the air outlet passage” and while the air outlet passage inherently has an inner inclined wall and an inner straight wall in this configuration, it does not inherently only have one of each and could have more. Thus it’s unclear which inner straight wall of the air outlet passage and which inner inclined wall of the air outlet passage are being referenced by “the inner straight wall of the air outlet passage” and “the inner inclined wall of the air outlet passage” in claim 10. As such, the scope of claim 10 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claims 12-14 are also rendered indefinite by depending from indefinite claim 10.
Claim 12 recites “the adjacent additional air inlets” but lacks antecedent basis for this recitation as claim 12, and claims 10, 7, and 1 from which it depends do not explicitly define adjacent additional air inlets and it’s unclear what adjacent additional air inlets are being referenced. As such, the scope of claim 12 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 13 recites “the length of the additional air inlet” but lacks antecedent basis for this recitation as claim 13, and claims 10, 7, and 1 from which it depends do not explicitly define an additional air inlet and it’s unclear what additional air inlet is being referenced. As such, the scope of claim 13 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “the bottom edge of the inner port of the additional air inlet” but lacks antecedent basis for this recitation as claim 14, and claims 10, 7, and 1 from which it depends do not explicitly define an additional air inlet or an inner port and it’s unclear what additional air inlet or inner port is being referenced. As such, the scope of claim 14 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “the photovoltaic module (3)” but claim 1 from which claim 15 depends recites plural photovoltaic modules (3) making it unclear which photovoltaic module is being referenced in claim 15. As such, the scope of claim 15 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
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, 3, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation), and in further view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) and further in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826).
Regarding claim 1 Wei discloses a novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules, comprising photovoltaic modules (see Page 3 of translation, Figs. 1 and 3 see: photovoltaic power generating phalanx 400 of photovoltaic power generating plates 403, also illustrated as lifting photovoltaic power generation plate 4031 and fixed photovoltaic power generation plate 432 in Fig. 14) matched with a building wall (Figs. 1 and 3 see: wall 500), the back of the photovoltaic modules being installed on the facade of the building wall (see Page 3 of translation, Figs. 1 and 3 see: backs of photovoltaic power generation plates 403 fixed to wall 500 through brackets 402) in parallel through a plurality of steel columns (see Page 4 of translation, Figs. 4-8, and 14, see: brackets 402 shown in detail as connecting rods 402321 formed of I-shaped steel and wall hinge connector 402221 formed of steel angle bars 7 either being “steel columns”), and a ventilation gap being formed between the photovoltaic modules and the building wall (see Page 3 of translation, Figs. 1 and 3 see: flow of hot air between photovoltaic power generating phalanx 400 and wall 500), wherein an air inlet passage is transversely inserted in the bottom of the ventilation gap (see Page 3 of translation, Figs. 1, 3, and 14 see: air 300 entering transversely at a bottom of the vent gap).
Wei does not explicitly disclose said air inlet is for forming a constricted air inlet or explicitly disclose an air outlet chimney as an air outlet is longitudinally inserted in the top of the ventilation gap.
Shen teaches a building ventilation structure having a ventilation gap with an air outlet chimney as an air outlet longitudinally inserted in the top of the ventilation gap (Shen, see bottom of Page 2 of translation, Figs. 1 and 4 see: cavity 19 (ventilation gap) formed between glass outer wall 4 and inner wall 2 and connected to a top longitudinal pumping mechanism 20 (chimney)). Shen teaches this mechanism assists in pumping hot air out of the ventilation gap in the summer Shen, see bottom of Page 2 of translation).
Shen and Wei are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of building ventilation structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation structure of Wei in view of Shen such that the ventilation structure of Wei further comprises an air outlet chimney as an air outlet longitudinally inserted in the top of the ventilation gap as in Shen (Shen, see bottom of Page 2 of translation, Figs. 1 and 4 see: cavity 19 (ventilation gap) formed between glass outer wall 4 and inner wall 2 and connected to a top longitudinal pumping mechanism 20 (chimney)) as Shen teaches this mechanism assists in pumping hot air out of the ventilation gap in the summer Shen, see bottom of Page 2 of translation).
Masaryk further teaches a solar panel cooling structure having an air inlet is for forming a constricted air inlet (Masaryk, Abstract, [0050] Fig. 1 see: photovoltaic panel 1 with an air cooler 2 having an air intake opening 3 that constricts inward).
Masaryk and modified Wei are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar panel cooling structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation structure of Wei in view of Masaryk such that the air inlet of Wei is for forming a constricted air inlet as in Masaryk (Abstract, [0050] Fig. 1 see: photovoltaic panel 1 with an air cooler 2 having an air intake opening 3 that constricts inward) as such a modification would have amounted to the use of a known air inlet design for its intended use in the known environment of a solar panel cooling arrangement to accomplish the entirely expected result of increasing velocity of the air flow.
Regarding claim 3 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 1, and Masaryk discloses wherein the air inlet passage is designed as a parallel structure (Masaryk, [0050], [0032] Fig. 1 see: air intake opening 3 covered with a mesh structure thus forming an array of parallel openings considered to meet the definition of a “parallel structure”).
Regarding claim 6 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 1, and Shen further discloses wherein an air outlet passage of the air outlet chimney adopts an enlarged air outlet design, and the longitudinal section of the air outlet passage is of a flared structure and constricted inward (Shen, see bottom half of page 3 of translation, Fig. 4 see: pumping mechanism has a suction pipe 22 formed with at enlarged outlet section that constricts inwards to an air pumping hole 21).
Regarding claim 15 modified Wei discloses novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 1, and Masaryk discloses wherein the photovoltaic module is any of a silicon solar module, a copper indium gallium selenide thin-film solar module, a cadmium telluride thin-film solar module, an organic photovoltaic thin-film solar module, a perovskite thin-film solar module, a dye-sensitized solar module, and an intrinsic heterojunction thin-film solar module (Masaryk, [0003] see: photovoltaic panels employ cells commonly formed from silicon cells).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, and 15 above, and further in view of Kano et al (JP H10159201A reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 2 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 1, but Wei does not explicitly disclose wherein the length L of the top surface of the air inlet passage (8) is 0.5 m to 2 m, and the height H of an opening (9) of the air inlet passage (8) is 0.2 m to 0.8 m; the width of the ventilation gap (6) is less than 0.08 m, and the ratio of the height of the opening (9) of the air inlet passage (8) to the width of the ventilation gap (6) is 2.5 to 10.
However, Kano teaches said lengths, width and height and relative ratios thereof in a ventilation gap for cooling solar panels controls the cross-sectional areas of these openings, and thus the flow rate of air within the ventilation gap and ultimately the cooling of the panels (Kano, see bottom half of page 5 of translation and Figs. 1 and 8).
As such, the length L of the top surface of the air inlet passage, the height H of an opening of the air inlet passage, the width of the ventilation gap, and the ratio of the height of the opening of the air inlet passage to the width of the ventilation gap in the apparatus of modified Wei would have all been considered result effective variables.
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 the length L of the top surface of the air inlet passage, the height H of an opening of the air inlet passage, the width of the ventilation gap, and the ratio of the height of the opening of the air inlet passage to the width of the ventilation gap in the apparatus of modified Wei to achieve the desired flow rate of air within the ventilation gap and optimized cooling of the solar panels. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. "Where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, and 15 above, and further in view of Zhao et al (CN 206724213U, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 4 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 1, but it’s unclear if modified Wei teaches where the angle between the bottom surface of the air inlet passage and the ground at the bottom of the building wall makes is an angle of 20° to 70°.
However, Zhao teaches such an inlet angle controls the air flow rate into the ventilation gap (Zhao, Abstract, upper half of page 2 of translation, and upper half of page 3 of translation, see Fig. 5).
As such, the angle between the bottom surface of the air inlet passage and the ground at the bottom of the building wall of modified Wei would have all been considered a result effective variable.
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 the angle between the bottom surface of the air inlet passage and the ground at the bottom of the building wall in the apparatus of modified Wei to achieve the desired flow rate of air into ventilation gap and optimized cooling of the solar panels. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. "Where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) in view of Zhao et al (CN 206724213U, reference made to attached English machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 15 above, and further in view of Yang et al (US 2013/0167908).
Regarding claim 5 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 4, wherein the end surface at the opening of the air inlet passage is sealed with an air inlet grille, which is provided with a plurality of through holes distributed in an array (Masaryk, [0050], [0032] Fig. 1 see: air intake opening 3 covered with a mesh structure thus forming an array of parallel openings), but does not explicitly disclose the longitudinal section of each through hole is of a flared structure and constricted inward.
However, Yang teaches a solar panel ventilation structure with an array of air inlet openings having such a flared structure that constricts inward (Yang, [0032]-[0033], Figs. 3 and 5-7, see: inlets 550 between supports 520 that have a cross-sectional area that constricts inward to outlet 560) to further accelerate airflow and improve heat dissipating ability (Yang, [0033]).
Yang and modified Wei are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar panel cooling structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation structure of Wei in view of Yang such that the longitudinal section of each through hole of modified Wei is of a flared structure and constricted inward as in Yang (Yang, [0032]-[0033], Figs. 3 and 5-7, see: inlets 550 between supports 520 that have a cross-sectional area that constricts inward to outlet 560) to further accelerate airflow and improve heat dissipating ability as taught by Yang (Yang, [0033]).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, and 15 above, and further in view of Shavit et al (WO 2020161548A2).
Regarding claim 7 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 1, and although Shen discloses wherein the air outlet passage of the air outlet chimney adopts an enlarged air outlet design, modified Wei does not explicitly disclose said design is a half-enlarged air outlet design, and the longitudinal section of the air outlet passage is of a half-flared structure and constricted inward.
However, Shavit teaches solar panel ventilation structures with an upper air outlet passage having a half-enlarged air outlet design, and the longitudinal section of the air outlet passage is of a half-flared structure and constricted inward (Shavit, [0087] Fig. 9B see: egress portion 3000 over solar harvesting utility (SHU) modules 12 having a half-enlarged outlet design to outlets 3001 having one straight wall and one flared wall).
Shavit and modified Wei are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar panel cooling structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation structure of Wei in view of Shavit such that the enlarged air outlet design in modified Wei is a half-enlarged air outlet design, and the longitudinal section of the air outlet passage is of a half-flared structure and constricted inward as in Shavit (Shavit, [0087] Fig. 9B see: egress portion 3000 over solar harvesting utility (SHU) modules 12 having a half-enlarged outlet design to outlets 3001 having one straight wall and one flared wall) as such a modification would have amounted to the selection of a known air outlet design for a solar panel ventilation structure for the predictable result of pumping hot air out of the ventilation gap. Furthermore, such modification would involve a mere change in shape. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 7, and Shavit teaches wherein the height of the top surface of the inner straight wall of the air outlet passage is greater than that of the top surface of the inner inclined wall of the air outlet passage (Shavit, [0087] Fig. 9B see: straight wall portion in egress portion 3000 extends higher than the inclined portion of the opposing wall).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, and 15 above, and further in view of Jiang et al (CN 110424530A, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 8 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 6 and Shen discloses wherein a chimney hood (14) suspended over the top opening of the air outlet passage (12) through supports (13) (Shen, Figs. 1 and 4 see: pumping mechanism 20 includes a flat cover suspended over the top opening with supports) but does not explicitly disclose said chimney hood is of a conical structure.
Jiang teaches chimney hoods for building wall ventilating structures having a conical shape (Jiang, top of pages 3 and 4 of translation, Fig. 1 see: cap 15 having conical shape at the top of exhaust duct 14) to prevent foreign matter and debris from entering the exhaust duct (Jiang, top of pages 3).
Jiang and modified Wei are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of building wall ventilating structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation structure of Wei in view of Jiang such that the chimney hood in modified Wei is of a conical structure as in Jiang (Jiang, top of pages 3 and 4 of translation, Fig. 1 see: cap 15 having conical shape at the top of exhaust duct 14) to prevent foreign matter and debris from entering the exhaust duct as in Jiang (Jiang, top of pages 3). Furthermore, such modification would involve a mere change in shape. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) in view of Shavit et al (WO 2020161548A2) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Jiang et al (CN 110424530A, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 9 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 7, and Shen teaches wherein a chimney hood (14) is suspended over the top opening of the air outlet passage (12) through supports (13) (Shen, Figs. 1 and 4 see: pumping mechanism 20 includes a flat cover suspended over the top opening with supports) but does not explicitly disclose said chimney hood is of a conical structure.
Jiang teaches chimney hoods for building wall ventilating structures having a conical shape (Jiang, top of pages 3 and 4 of translation, Fig. 1 see: cap 15 having conical shape at the top of exhaust duct 14) to prevent foreign matter and debris from entering the exhaust duct (Jiang, top of pages 3).
Jiang and modified Wei are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of building wall ventilating structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation structure of Wei in view of Jiang such that the chimney hood in modified Wei is of a conical structure as in Jiang (Jiang, top of pages 3 and 4 of translation, Fig. 1 see: cap 15 having conical shape at the top of exhaust duct 14) to prevent foreign matter and debris from entering the exhaust duct as in Jiang (Jiang, top of pages 3). Furthermore, such modification would involve a mere change in shape. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) in view of Zhao et al (CN 206724213U, reference made to attached English machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 15 above, and further in view of Li et al (CN 115233877A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in further view of Yang et al (US 2013/0167908).
Regarding claim 11 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a plurality of additional air inlets (15) capable of forming constricted air inlets are longitudinally and equidistantly arranged on the photovoltaic modules (3).
Li teaches a solar panel ventilation structure comprising a plurality of additional air inlets formed equidistantly arranged on photovoltaic modules (Li, page 5 of translation, Figs. 1-3 and 9 see: photovoltaic curtain wall body 300 including uniformly distributed groups of through holes 410 on buckle plate 400).
Li and modified Wei are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of building wall solar panel ventilating structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation structure of Wei in view of Li such that the apparatus of Wei further comprises a plurality of additional air inlets longitudinally and equidistantly arranged on the photovoltaic modules as in Li (Li, page 5 of translation, Figs. 1-3 and 9 see: photovoltaic curtain wall body 300 including uniformly distributed groups of through holes 410 on buckle plate 400) for the express purpose of providing additional air flow and as Li also teaches this arrangement reduces ingress of water and dust comparted to a single larger area inlet opening (Li, page 5 of translation).
Modified Wei does not explicitly disclose where said additional air inlets are capable of forming constricted air inlets, but Yang teaches a solar panel ventilation structure forming constricted air inlets (Yang, [0032]-[0033], Figs. 3 and 5-7, see: inlets 550 between supports 520 that have a cross-sectional area that constricts inward to outlet 560) to further accelerate airflow and improve heat dissipating ability (Yang, [0033]).
Yang and modified Wei are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar panel cooling structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation structure of Wei in view of Yang such that said additional air inlets of modified Wei are capable of forming constricted air inlets as in Yang (Yang, [0032]-[0033], Figs. 3 and 5-7, see: inlets 550 between supports 520 that have a cross-sectional area that constricts inward to outlet 560) to further accelerate airflow and improve heat dissipating ability as taught by Yang (Yang, [0033]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) in view of Shavit et al (WO 2020161548A2) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Li et al (CN 115233877A, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 12 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 10, but does not explicitly discloses where the distance between the adjacent additional air inlets (15) is 5 m to 8 m.
However, Li teaches a solar panel ventilation structure comprising a plurality of additional air inlets formed equidistantly arranged on photovoltaic modules (Li, page 5 of translation, Figs. 1-3 and 9 see: photovoltaic curtain wall body 300 including uniformly distributed groups of through holes 410 on buckle plate 400) where the spacing is set partly to reduce the amount of rainwater and dust that enters the system while allowing additional air flow (Li, page 5 of translation).
As such, the distance between the adjacent additional air inlets of modified Wei would have all been considered a result effective variable.
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 the distance between the adjacent additional air inlets in the apparatus of modified Wei to achieve the desired balance of the flow rate of air into ventilation gap while minimizing the amount of rainwater and dust that enters the system. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. "Where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) in view of Shavit et al (WO 2020161548A2) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Kano et al (JP H10159201A reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 13 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 10, but Wei does not explicitly disclose wherein the length of the additional air inlet (15) is less than 0.1 m, the height of a port (16) of the additional air inlet (15) is 0.2 m to 0.4 m, and the ratio of the height of the port (16) of the additional air inlet (15) to the width of the ventilation gap (6) is 2.5 to 5.
However, Kano teaches said lengths, width and height and relative ratios thereof in a ventilation gap for cooling solar panels controls the cross-sectional areas of these openings, and thus the flow rate of air within the ventilation gap and ultimately the cooling of the panels (Kano, see bottom half of page 5 of translation and Figs. 1 and 8).
As such, the length of the additional air inlet, the height of a port of the additional air inlet, and the ratio of the height of the port of the additional air inlet to the width of the ventilation gap in the apparatus of modified Wei would have all been considered result effective variables.
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 the length of the additional air inlet, the height of a port of the additional air inlet, and the ratio of the height of the port of the additional air inlet to the width of the ventilation gap in the apparatus of modified Wei to achieve the desired flow rate of air within the ventilation gap and optimized cooling of the solar panels. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. "Where 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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (CN 114244272A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Shen (CN 212743071U, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Masaryk (US 2015/0155826) in view of Shavit et al (WO 2020161548A2) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10 and 15 above, and further in view of Shi et al (CN 104060733A, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 14 modified Wei discloses the novel ventilation structure for BIPV modules of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bottom edge of the inner port (16) of the additional air inlet (15) is provided with a wind deflector (17) inclined upward, the inclination angle of which is 20° to 70°.
Shi teaches a photovoltaic curtain wall with a ventilation structure where the bottom edge of the inner port of the additional air inlet is provided with a wind deflector inclined upward, the inclination angle of which is 20° to 70° (Shi, [0046], [0021] Figs. 1-4 See: either inclined shutter structure of air inlets 6 or air flow guide 10 inclined upward where in both structure the angle of inclination illustrated in Figs. 2-3 as about 45° or otherwise between 20° to 70°, where the shutter structure of the air inlets 6 are adjustable and further capable of being adjusted within the claimed angle range). Shi teaches the flow guide adjusts the air inlet angle and the louvered structure of the air inlet helps control filtration of the incoming air (Shi, [0046], [0021]).
Shi and modified Wei are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of building wall solar panel ventilating structures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ventilation structure of Wei in view of Shi such that the apparatus of Wei wherein the bottom edge of the inner port of the additional air inlet is provided with a wind deflector inclined upward, the inclination angle of which is 20° to 70° as in Shi (Shi, [0046], [0021] Figs. 1-4 See: either inclined shutter structure of air inlets 6 or air flow guide 10 inclined upward where in both structure the angle of inclination illustrated in Figs. 2-3 as about 45° or otherwise between 20° to 70°, where the shutter structure of the air inlets 6 are adjustable and further capable of being adjusted within the claimed angle range) as Shi teaches the flow guide adjusts the air inlet angle and the louvered structure of the air inlet helps control filtration of the incoming air (Shi, [0046], [0021]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Jeffrey 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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726