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 Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, Line 2, “encapsulant” should read “an encapsulant” to improve clarity.
In Claims 5-6 and 12-14, “wherein encapsulant is removed” should read “wherein the encapsulant is removed” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation “applying the radiation liberates a chemical from the elastomer due to a halogen.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “an elastomer” was not previously recited in Claim 11 (or in Claim 1 as Claim 11 depends on Claim 1). However, Examiner notes Paragraph [0036] of the instant specification recites “Heating up the backsheet…can incur the unwanted side effect of liberating chemicals from the backsheet due to the presence of halogens” (emphasis added). For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as the solar module further comprising a backsheet and applying the radiation liberates a chemical from the backsheet due to a halogen.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: how applying radiation liberates a chemical from the elastomer due to a halogen. Examiner notes none of the recited elements are halogenated, no elastomers (halogenated or otherwise) are recited in Claim 11 (or Claim 1 as Claim 11 depends on Claim 1), and no halogenated elastomers are recited in Claim 10 where an elastomer is recited). For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as the solar module further comprising a backsheet and applying the radiation liberates a chemical from the backsheet due to a halogen.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamashita et al (PGPub 2025/0205762 with priority to November 7, 2022).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamashita teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
providing a used solar module (Fig. 6- solar cell module 2) comprising a glass layer (Fig. 6- plate glass 6), encapsulant (Fig. 6- sealing resin layer 8), and a photovoltaic material (Fig. 6- photovoltaic cells 4); and
applying radiation to remove at least a portion of the encapsulant and delaminate the used solar module (Fig. 6; [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamashita further teaches the encapsulant is removed from the glass layer (Fig. 6; [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamashita further teaches the radiation is applied in a controlled thermal process [0075]-[0076].
Regarding Claim 4, Yamashita further teaches the radiation is applied in a furnace (Fig. 2- thermal decomposition furnace 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamashita further teaches encapsulant is removed by pyrolysis [0005] in a reduced oxygen ambient ([0006]- oxygen concentration of 15% or more)
Regarding Claim 6, Yamashita further teaches encapsulant is removed by combustion ([0006]- full oxygen concentration).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamashita further teaches the photovoltaic material comprises CdTe [0061].
Regarding Claim 9, Yamashita further teaches the photovoltaic material comprises silicon [0061].
Regarding Claim 10, Yamashita further teaches the encapsulant comprises ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) and/or polyolefin elastomer (POE) [0004]-[0005]; [0059].
Regarding Claim 11, Yamashita further teaches applying the radiation liberates a chemical from the encapsulant ([0075]- sealing resin is thermally decomposed into acetic acid gas and polyethylene.
Regarding Claim 13, Yamashita further teaches encapsulant is removed by sublimation ([0075]- solid sealing resin is converted to acetic acid gas).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamashita further teaches encapsulant is removed by degradation or decomposition [0075].
Regarding Claim 19, Yamashita further teaches the radiation is multidirectional ([0062]- discussing the furnace; radiation of applied across the furnace).
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Veettil et al (PGPub 2025/0115042 with priority to February 11, 2022).
Regarding Claim 1, Veettil teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
providing a used solar module (Fig. 1- photovoltaic module 1) comprising a glass layer (Fig. 1- protective sheets 121, 122; [0024]- the protective sheet may be glass), encapsulant (Fig. 1- encapsulant material 111, 112), and a photovoltaic material (Fig. 1- solar cell 100); and
applying radiation to remove at least a portion of the encapsulant and delaminate the used solar module (Fig. 1- radiation 131; Fig. 5; [0111]).
Regarding Claim 2, Veettil further teaches the encapsulant is removed from the glass layer (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Veettil further teaches the radiation is applied in a controlled thermal process [0015].
Regarding Claim 4, Veettil further teaches the radiation is applied in a furnace [0051].
Regarding Claim 7, Veettil further teaches the used solar module is bifacial ([0024]- both protective sheets may be glass).
Regarding Claim 9, Veettil further teaches the photovoltaic material comprises silicon ([0139]- silicon solar cell).
Regarding Claim 10, Veettil further teaches the encapsulant comprises ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) and/or polyolefin elastomer (POE) [0003]-[0004]; [0024].
Regarding Claim 12, Veettil further teaches encapsulant is removed in a liquid flow ([0012]-[0013]- encapsulant is melted (in a liquid state).
Regarding Claim 14, Veettil further teaches encapsulant is removed by degradation or decomposition ([0020]- discussing the structural modification of the encapsulant material such as expansion resulting in bubbles or voids).
Regarding Claim 16, Veettil further teaches a wavelength of the radiation targets the encapsulant more than other portions of the used solar module ([0029]- discussing utilizing microwaves to target the encapsulant as glass/polymer layers are largely transparent to microwaves).
Regarding Claim 17, Veettil further teaches the radiation heats a thermal mass of the used solar module ([0027]- discussing heating the solar cells to a temperature).
Regarding Claim 18, Veettil further teaches the radiation is unidirectional (Fig. 1- showing the application of microwave radiation with arrows 131).
Regarding Claim 20, Veettil further teaches the used solar module is monofacial ([0024]- the second protective sheet may comprise a polymeric layer (such as PVF and TPT)) and includes a polymer backsheet ([0024]- discussing polymer backsheets); and
applying the radiation removes at least a portion of the polymer (Fig. 5- protective sheets are removed).
Claims 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasai et al (PGPub 2021/0305450).
Regarding Claim 1, Sasai teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
providing a used solar module (Fig. 1- photovoltaic module 7) comprising a glass layer (Fig. 1- tempered glass 6), encapsulant (Fig. 1- sealing resin layer 4), and a photovoltaic material (Fig. 1- cells 5); and
applying radiation to remove at least a portion of the encapsulant and delaminate the used solar module [0014].
Regarding Claim 2, Sasai further teaches the encapsulant is removed from the glass layer [0014].
Regarding Claim 3, Sasai further teaches the radiation is applied in a controlled thermal process [0014].
Regarding Claim 4, Sasai further teaches the radiation is applied in a furnace (Fig. 1- furnace 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Sasai further teaches encapsulant is removed by pyrolysis in a reduced oxygen ambient [0037].
Regarding Claim 6, Sasai further teaches encapsulant is removed by combustion ([0037]- air atmosphere is acceptable).
Regarding Claim 15, Sasai further teaches some leftover carbon of the encapsulant remains following application of the radiation ([0010]- black soot typically remains after pyrolyzing PET).
Claims 1-4, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruiz et al (WO2020104754 with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Ruiz teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
providing a used solar module (Fig. 1- laminated structure 1) comprising a glass layer (Fig. 1- glass plate 6), encapsulant (Fig. 1- encapsulation layers 4, 5), and a photovoltaic material (Fig. 1- cells 2); and
applying radiation to remove at least a portion of the encapsulant and delaminate the used solar module [0026]-[0027].
Regarding Claim 2, Ruiz further teaches the encapsulant is removed from the glass layer [0024].
Regarding Claim 3, Ruiz further teaches the radiation is applied in a controlled thermal process [0020].
Regarding Claim 5, Ruiz further teaches encapsulant is removed by pyrolysis in a reduced oxygen ambient [0026]-[0027].
Regarding Claim 6, Ruiz further teaches encapsulant is removed by combustion [0187].
Regarding Claim 11, Ruiz further teaches the solar module further comprises a backsheet (Fig. 1- backsheet 7; [0016]- the backsheet may contain at least one layer of fluorinated polymer) and applying the radiation liberates a chemical from the backsheet due to a halogen ([0030]- fluorinated polymers decompose and form harmful gaseous effuents) thus meeting the instant limitation of applying the radiation liberates a chemical from the elastomer due to a halogen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al (PGPub 2019/0371957) and Zhou et al (PGPub 2024/0079508) teach other methods of delaminating solar modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 6/15/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights