CTFR 18/985,330 CTFR 86702 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 5, 7, 17 and 19 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 5 depends from claim 2 and contains the limitation “the solar film is bonded to transparent material and the reflective components on the lens film using an adhesive.” It is unclear if the transparent material referred to in claim 5 is the same or different from the transparent material set forth in claim 2. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 5 will be treated as if it reads “the solar film is bonded to the transparent material and the reflective components on the lens film using an adhesive”. Claim 17 depends from claim 14 and contains the limitation “the solar film is bonded to transparent material”. It is unclear if the transparent material referred to in claim 17 is the same or different from the transparent material set forth in claim 14. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 17 will be treated as if it reads “the solar film is bonded to the transparent material”. Claims 7 and 19 contain the limitation “wherein: the absorption film is composed with ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) film; the EVA film is associated with one of copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) photovoltaic (PV) film and a perovskite-based film; the EVA film has layers that are encapsulated” which is unclear. First, it is unclear what the limitation “associated with” requires. The limitation “the EVA film is associated with one of copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) photovoltaic (PV) film and a perovskite-based film” is unclear. Second, the limitation “the EVA film has layers that are encapsulated” is unclear. EVA is typically used as an encapsulant material itself. Is the claim requiring the EVA to be further encapsulated or requiring EVA as an encapsulant? Third, EVA is typically a transparent encapsulant material. It is unclear how the absorption film is composed with EVA which is transparent. The requirements of an “absorption film” are unclear. The language of claims 7 and 19 is unclear and appropriate correction is required. Since the structure required by the claims is unclear, for the purpose of this Office Action, claims 7 and 19 will not be further treated on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 8-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Gilbert (US 2014/0299175) . Regarding claim 1, Gilbert discloses a system in Figures 2-3 comprising: a lens film (1, [60]) that directs incident light within a first angular range for absorption ([20]) and a second angular range toward viewing material (pixels 3) ([20] and [71]), the viewing material within areas of the lens film and forms an image ([69] and [71], Figure 2); reflective components below the viewing material (pixels) within the areas ([29], pixels can be on mirror surfaces which reads on “reflective components below the viewing material”), the reflective components (mirror surfaces) directing the incident light within the second angular range towards the viewing material ([29]) and the reflective components (mirror surfaces) are different than the lens film and a white material (the reflective components are mirror surfaces that the pixels are disposed on as discussed in [29]. The reflecting components are not part of the lens film and are not a white material.); and absorption film (solar collector 5) bonded to the reflective components ([72] and [88]) and located below the reflective components (Figures 2-3, the reflective components are on the back of pixels 3 and the absorption film is below the reflective components), the absorption film (5) capturing energy from the incident light within the first angular range and the absorption film being hidden and the image being visible at the second angular range ([20], [56], [63]-[69]). Regarding claim 8, Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the lens film is a lenticular film composed with one of a polymer and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) that forms a waveguide ([13]-[15], the lens film is a lenticular film that can be made of PET); the lenticular film and the absorption film adapt to a structural shape having a curvature (Figure 2); and the lenticular film is transparent and flexible ([11]-[13] and Figure 2). Regarding claim 9, Gilbert discloses a system in Figures 2-3 comprising: a lens film (1, [60]) that directs incident light within a first angular range for absorption ([20]) and a second angular range toward viewing material (pixels 3) ([20] and [71]), the viewing material within areas of the lens film and the viewing material forms an image ([69] and [71], Figure 2); reflective components below the viewing material (pixels) within the areas ([29], pixels can be on mirror surfaces which reads on “reflective components below the viewing material”), the reflective components (mirror surfaces) directing the incident light within the second angular range towards the viewing material ([29]) and the reflective components (mirror surfaces) are different than the lens film and a white material (the reflective components are mirror surfaces that the pixels are disposed on as discussed in [29]. The reflecting components are not part of the lens film and are not a white material.); and absorption components (solar collectors 5) applied on the lens film ([72] and [88]) and located below the reflective components (solar collectors 5 are below the mirror surfaces of pixels 3, Figure 2) capturing energy from the incident light within the first angular range and the absorption components located outside the areas ([20], [56], [63]-[69], the solar collectors 5 can be located only in the transparent areas 4). Regarding claim 10, Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses the absorption components (5) are directly applied to transparent material (4) ([65]-[66]), the absorption components (5) and the viewing material (3) form a juxtaposed pattern ([66]); and wherein the viewing material (3) and the reflective components (mirror surfaces) are directly printed to the lens film using the juxtaposed pattern with the transparent material directly between the viewing material and the reflective components ([94]-[95], [101]-[102] and Figure 2, the juxtaposed pattern in Gilbert is the same as the pattern disclosed in the instant specification with the transparent material directly alternating with the viewing material and reflective components). Gilbert further discloses that the absorption components can be directly in contact with the transparent material ([65]-[66]) and that the absorption components comprise particles made from absorption film ([19], solar material necessarily comprises particles). Regarding the limitations recited in claim 10 which are directed to method of making the absorption components (e.g. “the absorption components are solar ink directly printed to the transparent material, wherein the solar ink comprises particles made from absorption film”), it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. The structure of the device disclosed by Gilbert is the same as the structure of the device required by claim 10. Thus, the claim is unpatentable even though the device of Gilbert was made by a different process. In re Marosi , 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Regarding claim 11, Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the viewing material has a first width and the solar ink has a second width; and the first width and the second width comprising one of a 1:1 ratio, a 2:1 ratio, a 3:1 ratio, and a 1:3 ratio ([96] and [101], the viewing material and solar cell sections have the same width which reads on a 1:1 ratio). Regarding claim 12, Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the lens film is a lenticular film composed with one of a polymer and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) that forms a waveguide ([13]-[15], the lens film is a lenticular film that can be made of PET); the lenticular film, the viewing material and the absorption components adapt to a structural shape having a curvature (Figure 2); and the lenticular film is transparent and flexible ([11]-[13] and Figure 2). Regarding claim 13, Gilbert discloses a system in Figures 2-3 comprising: a lens film (1, [60]) that is a waveguide and directs incident light within a first angular range for absorption ([20]) and a second angular range toward viewing material (pixels 3) ([20] and [71]), the viewing material within areas of the lens film and the viewing material forms an image ([69] and [71], Figure 2); reflective material directly below the viewing material (pixels) within the areas ([29], pixels can be on mirror surfaces which reads on “reflective material directly below the viewing material”), the reflective material (mirror surfaces) directing the incident light within the second angular range towards the viewing material ([29]) and the reflective material (mirror surfaces) is different than the lens film and a white material (the reflective material is a mirror surface that the pixels are disposed on as discussed in [29]. The reflective material is not part of the lens film and are not a white material.); and absorption film (solar collector 5) bonded to the reflective material ([72] and [88]) and located below the reflective material (Figure 2), the absorption film (5) capturing energy from the incident light within the first angular range and the absorption film being hidden and the image being visible at the second angular range ([20], [56], [63]-[69]). Regarding claim 20, Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the lens film is a lenticular film composed with one of a polymer and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) that forms a waveguide ([13]-[15], the lens film is a lenticular film that can be made of PET); the lenticular film and the absorption film adapt to a structural shape having a curvature (Figure 2); and the lenticular film is transparent and flexible ([11]-[13] and Figure 2) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-6 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (US 2014/0299175), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Gilbert (US 2015/0214406, referred to as Gilbert ‘406) . Regarding claims 2 and 14, Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert discloses that the viewing material and the reflective material/components ([29], pixels on mirror surfaces) are directly printed to the lens film (1) ([94]-[95], [101]-[102]) using a juxtaposed pattern with transparent material directly between the viewing material and the reflective components ([94]-[95], [101]-[102] and Figure 2, the juxtaposed pattern in Gilbert is the same as the pattern disclosed in the instant specification with the transparent material directly alternating with the viewing material and reflective components); the absorption film (5) is a solar film ([68]); and the solar film (5) is flexible forming a substrate for the lens film (Figures 2 and 3 and [72] and [74]). Gilbert additionally discloses that the solar film is made of crystalline or amorphous silicon or of thin or organic layers ([19]), but Gilbert does not disclose that the solar film is one of copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) photovoltaic (PV) film and a perovskite-based film. Gilbert ‘406 discloses a system in Figure 1 comprising a photovoltaic sheet (5) on a viewing material (1) ([22]-[25]) comprising a CIGS photovoltaic film ([23]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the solar film material of Gilbert with a CIGS photovoltaic film, as taught by Gilbert ‘406, because it would amount to the simple substitution of one photovoltaic material for another to obtain a predictable result. Regarding claim 3, modified Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses the transparent material (4) is adjacent to the viewing material (pixels 3) outside of the areas ([20], [77] and [94], pixels can be printed on a flexible transparent material which results in transparent material (4) adjacent to the pixels (3)); the reflective material (mirror surface) and the viewing material (pixels) are directly printed without an intermediate material (The pixels and mirror surface are directly printed on the transparent material, [20], [29], [71], [77], [88], [94]); and wherein the solar film (5) is bonded to the transparent material and the reflective components (mirror surface of pixels) using an adhesive (glue, [101]). Regarding claim 4, modified Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the lens film and the solar film are configured to curve and form a complete circle (Figure 3 and [73]); and the image displays one of an advertisement, an exterior façade, and roofing material ([109]). Regarding claim 5, modified Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the solar film (5) is located on an existing structure (building or roof, [109]) and the solar film (5) is bonded to transparent material ([20], [77] and [94]) and the reflective components (mirror surface of pixels) on the lens film using an adhesive (transparent glue, [101]). Regarding claim 6, modified Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the viewing material has a first width and the transparent material near the viewing material has a second width; and the first width and the second width comprising one of a 1:1 ratio, a 2:1 ratio, a 3:1 ratio, and a 1:3 ratio ([101], the transparent material and viewing material have the same width which reads on a 1:1 ratio). Regarding claim 15, modified Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the transparent material (4) is adjacent to the viewing material (pixels 3) outside of the areas ([20], [77] and [94], pixels can be printed on a flexible transparent material which results in transparent material (4) adjacent to the pixels (3)) and the transparent material is part of the lens film (The transparent material can be interpreted as part of the lens film); the reflective material (mirror surface) and the viewing material (pixels) are directly printed without an intermediate material (The pixels and mirror surface are directly printed on the transparent material, [20], [29], [71], [77], [88], [94]); and wherein the solar film (5) is bonded to the transparent material and the reflective material (mirror surface of pixels) using an optical adhesive that is clear (transparent glue, [101]). Regarding claim 16, modified Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the lens film and the solar film are configured to curve and form a circle (Figure 3 and [73]); and the image displays one of an advertisement, an exterior façade, and roofing material ([109]). Regarding claim 17, modified Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the solar film (5) is located on an existing structure (building or roof, [109]) and the solar film (5) is bonded to transparent material on the lens film ([20], [77] and [94]) and the reflective material (mirror surface of pixels) on the lens film using an optical adhesive that is clear (transparent glue, [101]). Regarding claim 18, modified Gilbert discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Gilbert additionally discloses that the viewing material has a first width and the transparent material near the viewing material has a second width; and the first width and the second width comprising one of a 1:1 ratio, a 2:1 ratio, a 3:1 ratio, and a 1:3 ratio ([101], the transparent material and viewing material has the same width which reads on a 1:1 ratio) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gilbert does not disclose the limitations that the reflective components/material are different than the lens film and a white material. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gilbert discloses that the reflective components/material is directly below the viewing material (pixels) within the areas and the reflective components/material (mirror surfaces) is different than the lens film and a white material. As discussed in [29] of Gilbert, the pixels can be on mirror surfaces. Thus, the reflective components/material are mirror surfaces that the pixels are directly disposed on. The reflective components/material is not part of the lens film and are not a white material. Thus, Gilbert satisfies the claim limitations. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm. 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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. /LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 2 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 3 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 4 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 5 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 6 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 7 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 8 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 9 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 10 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 11 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 12 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 13 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 14 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 15 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 18/985,330 Page 16 Art Unit: 1728
Prosecution Insights