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
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweatt (US Pub No. 2015/0068584) in view of Albrecht (Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 81), Kurland (US Pat No. 4755231), Bennett (US Pub No. 2010/0043319), and Correia (US Pub No. 2014/0026945)
Regarding Claim 1, Sweatt et al. teaches a apparatus for the capture and storage of power, the apparatus [Fig. 2, 0027] comprising:
1) a first layer acting as a protective layer [112, 110, 210, Fig. 2, 0027];
ii) a second layer [212, 206, 208, 204, Fig. 2, 0027-0028] comprising a device that is able to generate power from a natural energy source [Fig. 5, 0015, 0025], wherein the first layer simultaneously allows the second layer to be exposed to the natural energy source [Fig. 2, 0027-0028], the device comprising one or more photovoltaic cells [See 202, Fig. 2, 0027-0028]
wherein the first, second and third layers are all present as part of individual tiles [Fig. 2, 0027-0028]
Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein the device comprising one or more photovoltaic cells are manufactured via perovskite crystallization and a third layer comprising an energy distribution system, wherein the third layer comprises three sub-layers therein, and wherein the sub-layers include an electrically conductive sub-layer sandwiched between an upper sub-layer and a lower sub-layer, both upper and lower sub-layers being substantially electrically non-conductive; and wherein the electrically conductive sub-layer provides flexibility and movement tolerance and comprises a composite alloy material; wherein the first, second and third layers are all present as part of individual tiles, which are removable, and a first layer being provided with non-slip characteristics.
Albrecht et al. teaches the use of a tandem solar cell comprising crystalline silicon and a perovskite absorber [Abstract], where the perovskite layer comprises perovskite crystals [page 83, middle right of page]. The tandem cell would provide higher efficiencies than single junction silicon solar cells [Abstract].
Since Sweatt et al. teaches photovoltaic elements which may comprise crystalline silicon [0023] or other types of solar cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the photovoltaic element of Sweatt et al. with the tandem solar cell of Abrecht et al. in order to provide a solar cell with higher efficiency [Abstract].
Kurland et al. discloses a system comprising a flexible Kapton bilayer comprising Kapton 12a/aluminum 22/Kapton 12b [Fig. 3, Column 4 lines 40-55, lines 30-35]
Since modified Sweatt et al. teaches a system comprising a solar cell with a third layer made of a polymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to include the system comprising the flexible aluminum Kapton bilayer of Kurland et al. in the third layer of modified Sweatt et al. in order to provide a layer with a resistivity low enough to keep accumulated charge voltages to a reasonably low level but high enough not to effectively short out the solar cells, and provide solid grounding [Column 2 lines 47-60] and to provide for discharge of any accumulated charge on the rear face of the substrate [Column 3 lines 40-50].
Within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches a third layer of Kapton/Al/Kapton meeting the limitations of the claim. Al is a conductive material so it would have been expected to have some degree of flexibility, and movement tolerance [Specification, page 7, ln 10-20]. The combination provides the third layer provides a sheet with a resistivity low enough to keep accumulated charge voltages to a reasonably low level but high enough not to effectively short out the solar cells, and provide solid grounding [Column 2 lines 47-60] and to provide for discharge of any accumulated charge on the rear face of the substrate [Column 3 lines 40-50] meeting the limitation of “an energy distribution system”
Bennett et al. teaches solar tiles which may be removable [0022], with a screw-in system, snap-in system, or slide-in system of attachment to a cavity of a slot or docking station [0022]
Since modified Sweatt et al. teaches the use of solar cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to make the cells of modified Sweatt et al. to be removable as taught by Bennett et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional installation means for solar cells in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Correia et al. teaches the incorporation of random pyramid textured structures to reduce reflection [0039].
Since modified Sweatt et al. teaches the use of an ARC 210 in the first layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention apply the texture of random pyramids on the surface of the first layer of modified Sweatt et al. in order to reduce reflection [0039].
As a results of the combination, the first layer would have raised protrusions resulting in non-slip characteristics.
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein the second layer comprises a plurality of photovoltaic cell [212, Fig. 2, 0023].
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein the plurality of photovoltaic cells is located on a surface of the second layer that is proximal to the first layer [Fig. 2, 0027-0028].
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein the plurality of photovoltaic cells is located on one or more sides of the second layer [Fig. 2, 0027-0028].
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein the first, second and third layers of the apparatus together form a tile or panel [See rejection of claim 1, Fig. 2, 0027-0028].
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein the first and second layers of the apparatus together form a tile or panel, which is then connected to the third layer [Fig. 2, 0027-0028].
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein the conductive sub-layer provides an energy distribution system to distribute electricity generated by the apparatus across a plurality of interconnected apparatuses [See rejection of claim 1, Fig. 2, 0027-0028].
Regarding Claim 16, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches an array comprising a plurality of apparatuses according to claim 1 interconnected with each other [See rejection of claim 1, Fig. 2, 0027-0028].
Regarding Claim 17, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein any two or more apparatuses are connected to each other using one or more magnetic connectors, or a bonding or connecting conductive material [See rejection above].
Regarding Claim 20, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein each energy management cell controls the flow of electricity across a minimum cluster of four or more apparatuses [See rejection above].
Claim(s) 5 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweatt (US Pub No. 2015/0068584) in view of Albrecht (Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 81), Kurland (US Pat No. 4755231), Bennett (US Pub No. 2010/0043319) and Correia (US Pub No. 2014/0026945) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Iwasaki (US Pub No. 2014/0230883)
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein the apparatus comprises a housing, the housing comprising a resin material containing an amount of one or more of graphene oxide, boron nitride, fire retardant additives, carbon black and/or graphite.
Iwasaki et al. teaches a housing formed of a resin [0028] in order to provide a constant heat dissipating property [0028].
Since both modified Sweatt et al. and Iwasaki et al. teaches concentrating light on solar cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the apparatus of modified Sweatt et al. in the housing of Iwasaki et al. in order to provide a provide constant heat dissipation [0028].
Regarding Claim 18, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein electrical power is stored in a battery located within a battery cell.
Iwasaki et al. teaches a concentrator photovoltaic panel which provides a battery used to store energy from the solar cells [0023].
Since modified Sweatt et al. teaches the use of solar cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention utilized the battery of Iwaskai et al. with the solar cells of modified Sweatt et. al. as it is merely the selection of a known storage means for solar cell in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 19, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein the array is operated in conjunction with one or more energy management cells, the one or more energy management cells each comprising a printed circuit board, which controls the flow of electricity across the array.
Iwasaki et al. teaches a concentrator photovoltaic panel comprising a flexible printed circuit, which provides a battery used to store energy from the solar cells [0023] and an energy management cell [diode 125, Fig. 7, 0067] used to bypass the solar cells which do not generate power due to a failure or the like can prevent from disturbing the power generation of the whole circuit 12A for power generation [0067].
Since modified Sweatt et al. teaches the use of solar cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention utilized the energy management cells of Iwasaki et al. in order to bypass the solar cells which do not generate power due to a failure [0067].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweatt (US Pub No. 2015/0068584) in view of Albrecht (Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 81), Kurland (US Pat No. 4755231), Bennett (US Pub No. 2010/0043319) and Correia (US Pub No. 2014/0026945) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Lim (US Pub No. 2015/0287863)
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein the second layer comprises a dye material.
Lim et al. teaches a solar cell made of silicon, quantum dots, or a dye material [0038].
Since both modified Sweatt et al. and Lim et al. teaches the use of solar cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention before the filing of the invention to modify the solar cells of modified Sweatt et al. with the dye material of Lim et al. as it is merely the selection of a known photovoltaic materials in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.)
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweatt (US Pub No. 2015/0068584) in view of Albrecht (Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 81), Kurland (US Pat No. 4755231), Bennett (US Pub No. 2010/0043319) and Correia (US Pub No. 2014/0026945) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Shimizu (US Pub No. 2012/0132253),
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein the conductive sub-layer comprises a composite alloy material comprising one or more of a rare earth magnetic metal, copper, copper oxide, graphene, graphene oxide, cobalt and/or nickel
Shimizu et al. teaches an electrical configuration for a solar module used to prevent thermal expansion of the components [0020-0024] comprising a third layer in the form of a substrate comprising a conductive layer in the form of a mesh [7, Fig. 20, and 0081-0082, and layer 7 can be stretchable, 0072, layer 7 can be made of aluminum or copper] between non conductive layer [8, Fig. 20, 0085] and non conductive layer [4, Fig. 20, 0099]. The conductive layer 7 is connected to a terminal box [9, fig. 20, 0068].
Since modified Sweatt et al. also teaches the use of a substrate as the third layer and it can comprise polymers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the substrate of modified Sweatt et al. with the substrate of Shimizu et al. in order to provide a solar module that can prevent breakage of the lead wires of the solar cell module and other problems under environments exposed to wind and rain or to temperature differentials [0021, 0020-0024].
Within the combination above, the electrical conductive sub-layer made of a copper mesh, which is the same as disclosed by the applicant [Specification, page 7, ln 10-20], and would have been expected to have flexibility, and movement tolerance.
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein the conductive sub-layer comprises a flexible conductive mesh structure [see rejection of claim 8].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweatt (US Pub No. 2015/0068584) in view of Albrecht (Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 81), Kurland (US Pat No. 4755231), Bennett (US Pub No. 2010/0043319) and Correia (US Pub No. 2014/0026945) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Daniel (US Pub No. 2012/0103392)
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein the conductive sub-layer comprises one or more sensors located thereon.
Daniel et al. teaches a substrate with solar cells which includes a sensor [0016].
Since modified Sweatt et al. also teaches the use of a substrate for solar cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to add a sensor to the substrate of modified Sweatt et al. as shown by Daniel et al. as it is merely the selection of known functional substrate components for solar cells in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweatt (US Pub No. 2015/0068584) in view of Albrecht (Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 81), Kurland (US Pat No. 4755231), Bennett (US Pub No. 2010/0043319) and Correia (US Pub No. 2014/0026945) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Hobbie (US Pub No. 2010/0096003)
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein the second layer and third layer are connected together by one or more magnets.
Hobbie et al. teaches the use of a magnetic layer [27, Fig. 1, 0065, abstract] used to create and/or generate greater photon and electron excitement, retention and absorption within the crystalline matrix of the photovoltaic solar cell device [Abstract].
Since modified Sweatt et al. is concerned about providing higher efficiency [0043], it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the third layer of modified Sweatt et al. with the magnetic layer of Hobbie et al. in order to create and/or generate greater photon and electron excitement, retention and absorption within the crystalline matrix of the photovoltaic solar cell device [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein the second layer comprises one or more magnets on a lower surface thereof, and the upper sub-layer of the third layer has a magnet positioned at one or more corners thereof.
Hobbie et al. teaches the use of a magnetic layer [27, Fig. 1, 0065, abstract] used to create and/or generate greater photon and electron excitement, retention and absorption within the crystalline matrix of the photovoltaic solar cell device [Abstract].
Since modified Sweatt et al. is concerned about providing higher efficiency [0043], it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the third layer of modified Sweatt et al. with the magnetic layer of Hobbie et al. in order to create and/or generate greater photon and electron excitement, retention and absorption within the crystalline matrix of the photovoltaic solar cell device [Abstract].
Claim(s) 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweatt (US Pub No. 2015/0068584) in view of Albrecht (Energy Environ. Sci., 2016, 9, 81), Kurland (US Pat No. 4755231), Bennett (US Pub No. 2010/0043319) and Correia (US Pub No. 2014/0026945)as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Meitl (US Pub No. 2013/0153934)
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. is silent on wherein the second layer further comprises one or more light emitting diodes; and wherein the one or more light emitting diodes optionally being located on the surface of the second layer that is proximal to the first layer.
Meitl et al. teaches the use of light emitting diodes [30, Fig. 2, 0085] between solar cells [20, Fig. 2, 0085] for a solar concentrator [Abstract]. The use of light emitting diodes provides the system with a improved appearance [0005-0008].
Since modified Sweatt et al. teaches the use of solar cells for a concentrator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the light emitting diodes of Meitl et al. between the solar cells of modified Sweatt et al. in order to provide a solar concentrator with an improved appearance [0005-0008].
Regarding Claim 21, within the combination above, modified Sweatt et al. teaches wherein the one or more light emitting diodes being located on the surface of the second layer that is proximal to the first layer [see rejection of claim 7].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726