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.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sauer (WO2016/099896).
Sauer shows a photovoltaic module, comprising: at least one solar cell;
a first region above the at least one solar cell, wherein the first region includes a first continuous fiber tape, wherein the first continuous fiber tape includes continuous glass
fiber extending in a first direction, wherein the first continuous fiber tape has a first flexure strength in the first direction; and a second region below the at least one solar cell, wherein the second region includes a second continuous fiber tape, wherein the second continuous fiber tape includes continuous glass fiber extending in a second direction, and wherein the second continuous fiber tape has a second flexure strength in the second direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 21-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer (WO2016/099896) in view of Hudson Jr et al (2012/0312373).
Sauer figure 2b, discloses photovoltaic module includes at least one solar cell, a first region above the at least one solar cell, wherein the first region includes a first continuous fiber tape, wherein the first continuous fiber tape includes continuous glass fiber extending in a first direction, wherein the first continuous fiber tape has a first flexure strength in the first direction, a second region below the at least one solar cell, wherein the second region includes a second continuous fiber tape, wherein the second continuous fiber tape includes continuous glass fiber extending in a second direction, wherein the second continuous fiber tape has a second flexure strength in the second direction.
Sauder does not disclose a system having a plurality of photovoltaic modules installed on a roof deck.
Hudson Jr et al discloses a system having a plurality of photovoltaic modules installed on a roof deck.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sauer’s structure to show a system having a plurality of photovoltaic modules installed on a roof deck as taught by Hudson Jr. et al in order to use Sauder’s photovoltaic module on a roof deck.
Per claim 22, Sauer as modified further shows each of the first continuous fiber tape and the second continuous fiber tape includes a polymer (..resin impregnated tapes….).
Per claim 25, Sauer as modified further shows the first region includes a single layer of the first continuous fiber tape.
Per claim 26, Sauer as modified further shows the second region includes a single layer of the second continuous fiber tape.
Per claim 27, Sauer as modified further shows the first region includes a plurality of layers of the first continuous fiber tape.
Per claim 28, Sauer as modified further shows the second region includes a plurality of layers of the second continuous fiber tape.
Per claims 29-32, 38, Sauer as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the first direction is parallel to the second direction, the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, the first direction is oblique to the second direction, the first direction is 0 degrees to 90 degrees relative to the second direction, wherein the third direction is 0 degrees to 90 degrees relative to the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sauer’s modified structure to show the first direction is parallel to the second direction, the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction, the first direction is oblique to the second direction, the first direction is 0 degrees to 90 degrees relative to the second direction, wherein the third direction is 0 degrees to 90 degrees relative to the second direction with a reasonable expectation of success in order to satisfy the bending and strength properties of the module.
Per claim 33, Sauer as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for a distance between the first continuous fiber tape and the second continuous fiber tape is 1 mm to 6 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sauer’s modified structure to show a distance between the first continuous fiber tape and the second continuous fiber tape is 1 mm to 6 mm with reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify Sauer’s tape to show the claimed dimensions as long as the dimensions provide for the needed strength and flexibility.
Per claims 34-37, Sauer as modified further shows each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes a third region, wherein the third region includes a third continuous fiber tape, wherein the third continuous fiber tape includes continuous glass fiber extending in a third direction, wherein the third region is between the first region
and the second region, wherein the third region is below the second region, wherein the third continuous fiber tape has a third flexure strength in the third direction.
Per claims 23-24, Sauer as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the first continuous fiber tape has a first flexure strength in the first direction of 150 Mpa to 500 Mpa, wherein the second continuous fiber tape has a second flexure strength in the second direction of 150 Mpa to 500 Mpa.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sauer’s modified structure to show the first continuous fiber tape has a first flexure strength in the first direction of 150 Mpa to 500 Mpa, wherein the second continuous fiber tape has a second flexure strength in the second direction of 150 Mpa to 500 Mpa since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05, one having ordinary skill in the art thus would have found it obvious to modify Sauer’s tapes to show claimed flexure strength as long as the flexural strength provides the desired properties to the photovoltaic module.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different roof top photovoltaic modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
