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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-65 are canceled. Claims 66-94 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a measurement system” in claim 80. The term system is a generic placeholder coupled with functional language and is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (image capture device (camera 206) with one or more interchangeable bandpass filters (208, 220, 222); [0060]; FIG. 2).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 67-72, 74, 80-85 and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MARKLE (US 3641344).
Regarding claim 67, MARKLE discloses a method for measuring a photoluminescence response from an object (abstract; col. 1, ll. 3-11, 61-66; col. 3, l. 67 – col. 4, l. 13; claim 1), the method comprising the steps of:
exposing the object to solar irradiation to generate photoluminescence from the object (the scene is illuminated by direct sunlight, which stimulates the materials to fluoresce; col. 1, ll. 3-11; col. 2, ll. 64-67);
measuring first and second signals from the object in first and second spectral bands (a first image formed from a waveband inside a preselected Fraunhofer band, and as second image from a waveband in the continuum near the same band, using a filter 14/25/26; col. 2, ll. 1-7, 30-38; col. 3, ll. 17-28; col. 3, l. 73 – col. 4, l. 3), each of the measured first and second signals having a photoluminescence component and a background component (reflected sunlight retains the Fraunhofer lines, while added fluorescence, which lacks those lines, contributes to each measurement; col. 1, ll. 18-35), wherein the first and second spectral bands are selected such that the ratio of the photoluminescence component to the background component is higher in the first measured signal than in the second measured signal (inside the absorption band the reflected sunlight is strongly attenuated while the fluorescence is not, so the fluorescence reduces the relative depth of the line; in the continuum the reflected sunlight is unattenuated; col. 1, ll. 18-35); and
differencing the first and second measured signals to obtain a difference signal having an increased ratio of the photoluminescence component to the background component compared to the first measured signal (continuum image is subtracted from the Fraunhofer image, and the difference image contains only solar-stimulated fluorescence; col. 3, ll. 7-11, 49-56; col. 4, l. 8; claim 1, step d).
Regarding claim 68, MARKLE further discloses the step of interpreting the difference signal to obtain information on one or more properties of the object (difference image directly indicated wherein fluorescent materials are located, and its brightness is proportional to their relative concentration; col. 3, ll. 39-43; col. 4, ll. 19-39).
Regarding claim 69, MARKLE discloses wherein the first and second signals are measured with an image capture device (image tube 15 or film 27, 28; col. 3, ll. 38-46; col. 3, ll. 22-25).
Regarding claim 70, MARKLE further discloses the step of displaying the difference signal as a difference image (display device 17; col. 2, ll. 38-46).
Regarding claim 71, MARKLE further discloses the step of applying a scaling factor to the first measured signal or the second measured signal prior to the differencing step (two images are normalized before subtraction; col. 3, ll. 1-4, 56-60; col. 4, ll. 4-7).
Regarding claim 72, MARKLE discloses the first spectral band is overlapping with a peak region of a photoluminescence response of the object (absorption band is selected to coincidence with fluorescence emission of the target; col. 1, ll. 18-35).
Regarding claim 74, MARKLE discloses wherein the first and second spectral bands are provided by bandpass filters or equivalent filter combinations (filters 14, 25, and/or 26; col. 2, ll. 30-38; col. 3, ll. 5-10, 22-27).
Regarding claim 80, MARKLE discloses an apparatus for measuring a photoluminescence response from an object exposed to solar irradiation (col. 4, ll. 19-59; col. 4, l. 74 – col. 6, l. 2), the apparatus comprising:
a measurement system for measuring first and second signals from an object exposed to solar irradiation, the first and second signals being measured in first and second spectral bands and each having a photoluminescence component generated by the solar irradiation and a background component (objective lens 12, tunable filter 14, image tube 15; or objective lens 22, beamsplitter 24, filters 25/26 and film 27/28; col. 2, ll. 26-46; col. 3, ll. 11-28; each of these is the same structure as, or the equivalent of, the camera-and-bandpass filter structure identified under 112(f)),
wherein the first and second spectral bands are selected such that the ratio of the photoluminescence component to the background component is higher in the first measured signal than in the second measured signal (inside the absorption band the reflected sunlight is strongly attenuated while the fluorescence is not, so the fluorescence reduces the relative depth of the line; in the continuum the reflected sunlight is unattenuated; col. 1, ll. 18-35); and
a computer for differencing the first and second measured signals to obtain a difference signal having an increased ratio of the photoluminescence component to the background component compared to the first measured signal (electronic system 16, which includes a computer, normalizes the two electrical images and subtracts the continuum image from the Fraunhofer image; col. 2, ll. 47-56).
Regarding claim 81, MARKLE discloses the computer configured to interpret the difference signal to obtain information on one or more properties of the object (presence, location, and relative concentration; col. 3, ll. 39-43).
Regarding claim 82, MARKLE discloses wherein the measurement system comprises an image capture device (image tube 15; col. 2, ll. 38-46).
Regarding claim 83, MARKLE discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a display for displaying the difference signal as a difference image (display device 17; col. 2, ll. 56-60).
Regarding claim 84, MARKLE discloses wherein the computer is configured to apply a scaling factor to the first measured signal or the second measured signal prior to the differencing step (normalization in electronic system 16; col. 2, ll. 49-56).
Regarding claim 85, MARKLE discloses wherein the measurement system comprises one or more filters selected such that the first spectral band is overlapping with a peak region of a photoluminescence response of the object (band coincident with the fluorescence peak; col. 1, ll. 67-75).
Regarding claim 87, MARKLE discloses wherein the measurement system comprises one or more bandpass filters or equivalent filter combinations (filters 14, 25, 26; col. 2, ll. 30-38; col. 3, ll. 22-27).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 73 and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARKLE (US 3641344) in view of MAIER (US 6329660 B1).
Regarding claims 73 and 86, MARKLE teaches the method of claim 67 and the apparatus of claim 80, as set forth above, in which the first spectral band lines inside a solar Fraunhofer absorption band (col. 1, ll. 18-23; col. 2, ll. 1-7), but does not disclose the first spectral band overlaps an atmospheric band in the spectrum of the solar irradiation. MAIER teaches a system and method for sunlight-induced fluorescence measurement comprising taking a first radiance measurement inside an atmospheric absorption band and a second radiance measurement outside it, the fluorescence “filling” the atmospheric absorption band in the reflected signal (col. 2, ll. 18-21, 37-43; col. 5, l. 62 – col. 7, l. 9). MAIER identifies the atmospheric absorption bands of water vapor and oxygen between 600 nm and 1000 nm as suitable (col. 2, ll. 44-51), uses interference bandpass filters centered at 752 nm and at 762 nm (col. 4, ll. 47-52), and provides imaging detection with a CCD camera 5 and a filter wheel 6 carrying the interference bandpass filters (col. 5, ll. 12-19; col. 6-7), the invention permitting less sensitive detectors or measurements over larger distances (col. 2, ll. 65-67; col. 3, ll. 1-4). In light of the benefits disclosed by MAIER, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of MARKLE.
Claim(s) 75-79 and 88-92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DECIGLIE et al. (US 20180262159 A1) in view of MARKLE (US 3641344).
Regarding claims 75 and 76, DECIGLIE discloses a method for measuring a photoluminescence response from an object comprising silicon (luminescence imaging of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, panels and modules, to identify defects such as cracks; [0012, 0018, 0029, 0041, 0046]), the method comprising:
exposing the object to solar radiation to generate photoluminescence from the object (open-circuit outdoor photoluminescence (OCPL) imaging; [0003, 0035, 0038, 0072]);
measuring first and second signals from the object, each having a photoluminescence component and a background component (first “odd” and second “even” image acquired with detector 140; [0019, 0022-0025, 0029]); and
differencing the first and second measured signals to obtain a difference signal having an increased ratio of the photoluminescence component to the background component to the first measured signal (odd image is subtracted from the even image to create a difference image, separating luminescence from the background signal; [0009, 0025]).
DECIGLIE does not disclose measuring the first and second signals in first and second spectral bands selected such that the ratio of the photoluminescence component to the background component is higher in the first measured signal than the second measured signal. DECIGLIE takes both images in the same spectral band and instead varies the luminescence by switching the module between two electrical conditions with switch 120 and power supply and/or load 110 ([0020, 0022, 0024, 0030]). However, MARKLE teaches separating solar-stimulated emission from reflected sunlight by forming a first image in a spectral band inside an absorption band of the solar spectrum, where reflected sunlight is strongly attenuated but the emission is not, and forming a second image in the nearby continuum, normalizing the two images so that the reflected-sunlight intensities, and subtracting the two images so that the difference image contains only the emission, with the benefit of a photoluminescence component of the object (col. 1, ll. 18-35; col.1, l. 72 – col. 2, l. 11; col. 3, l. 67 – col. 4., l. 13). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a known technique (method of background removal in photoluminescence of MARKLE without a source or power supply) to a device ready for improvement to obtain predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Regarding claims 77 and 90, MARKLE teaches placing the first band wherein the materials emission coincides with a solar absorption band (col. 1, ll. 18-35), wherein it is known that the band-to-band photoluminescence of crystalline silicone at room temperature ranges from 900-1300 nm and peaks around 1130 nm (see, for example, YOO et al.1). Based on the teachings of MARKLE as to the highest ratio of emission to reflected sunlight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of DECIGLIE to arrive at the claimed invention. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (MARKLE), discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill (YOO). In re Aller, 220 F. 2D454 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 78-79 and 91-92, DECEGLIE does not expressly teach a second spectral band centered in 1160-1250 nm (claims 78, 91) or 1000-1120 nm (claims 79, 92).
However, MARKLE places the second band in the continuum near the absorption band (col. 4, ll. 1-3). For a first band centered near 1135 nm, the nearby continuum on the long-wavelength side lives above about 1160 nm and on the short wavelength side below about 1120 nm, both within the silicon emission range of 1000-1300 nm imaged by DECEGLIE ([0029]). Selecting the second band as within the claimed ranges would have been routine optimization of a result-effective variable, namely the trade-off between a low emission contribution and matched light level contribution, which MARKLE’s normalization step addresses (col. 3, ll. 56-60).
Regarding claims 88 and 89, DECIGLIE discloses wherein the apparatus is configured for measuring a photoluminescence response from an object comprising silicon (crystalline silicon photovoltaic cell; [0012, 0018, 0041, 0046]).
89. The apparatus according to claim 88, wherein the apparatus is configured for measuring a photoluminescence response from an object comprising a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of silicon photovoltaic cells.
Regarding claims 93 and 94, MARKLE describes the system comprising a computer (col. 2, ll. 47-56). DECEGLIE further discloses the image-acquisition and image-subtractions steps may be partially automated using appropriate software ([0029]). Based on the combined teachings, it would have been obvious to provide the claimed inventions disclosed in claims 67 and 80 in a computer-readable medium as program code.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 67-94 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12255582 in view of MARKLE (US 3641344).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of ‘582 recites a method comprising (i) exposing an object to solar irradiation to generate photoluminescence from the object; and (ii) measuring a signal from the object in a spectral band selected such that at least 20% of the measured signal comprises photoluminescence generated from the object by the solar irradiation, wherein the object comprises a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of silicon photovoltaic cells. Claim 15 of the ’582 patent recites the corresponding apparatus. The ‘582 claims thus recite instant step (i) and a first measured signal in a first spectral band having a photoluminescence component and a background component (up to 80% of the signal).
The ’582 claims do not recite measuring a second signal in a second spectral band having a lower ratio of photoluminescence to background, and a differencing the two signal to obtain a difference signal with an increased photoluminescence ratio, as recited in instant claims 67 and 80.
However, MARKLE teaches, for a sunlit scene, forming a first image in a spectral band inside a solar absorption band (i.e. Fraunhofer absorption band) wherein the emitting material fluorescence and a second image in the nearby ‘continuum’, normalizing the two images, and subtracting the continuum image from the in-band image, so that the difference image contains only the solar-stimulated emissions (col. 1, l. 72; col. 2, ll. 47-56), with the benefit of obtaining an improved fluorescence component. In light of MARKLE’s second continuum-band measurement, normalization, and subtraction method, in addition to the ‘582 claims expressly contemplating that up to 80% of the measured light can be background, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of the ‘582 to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
In light of the combined teachings and patented claims, the instant dependent claims are not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
1 YOO et al., “Temperature Dependence of Photoluminescence Spectra from Crystalline Silicon”, ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology, 4 (12) P456-P461 (2015).
Prosecution Insights