DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Species A1, B1, C2, D1, E2, F1, and G2 corresponding to claims 1-8, 11-14, 17, 19-23, 25, 27-28, 30-32, and 34 in the reply on 01/23/2016 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-10, 15-16, 18, 24, 26, 29, and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 20-23, 28, 30, and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 8, 25, 34 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “the reservoir” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “a reservoir”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 recites multiple “them”. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “them” to further limit. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 recites multiple “them”. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “them” to further limit. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 recites multiple “it”. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the claimed “it” to further limit. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAO (CN 216531207 U, see English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, CAO teaches a photovoltaic (PV) device (see the photovoltaic module; see Abstract and Figs. 1-5), comprising:
a plurality of PV regions (see the plurality of battery cell areas on the back side of the protective unit 11; see Fig. 1 attached below), configured to generate electricity from incoming light (The battery cell has this function) (see Abstract and Figs. 1-5);
wherein the PV regions have: a top-side that is intended to face the incoming light, and a bottom-side that is opposite to said top-side (see Abstract and Figs. 4-5; See the top side of the plurality of battery cell areas, which is intended to face the incoming light and the bottom side of the plurality of battery cell areas which is opposite to the top side);
a mechanical resilience and mitigation layer (see the protective pad, which has mechanical resilience and mitigation property), located above the top-side of the PV regions (see Abstract and Figs. 1-5), configured to protect the PV regions from mechanical and functional damage by hail and debris (The protective pad has this function; see Abstract: a protection pad capable of covering the surface of a photovoltaic module, the protection pad comprises at least one protection unit, and the protection unit comprises a packaging layer and a dilatancy fluid filled in the packaging layer. The protection pad is flatly laid on the surface of the photovoltaic module and is soft when being not stressed, when hail or other heavy objects fall on the protection pad, the dilatation fluid is stressed and becomes firm due to a shear thickening effect, the hail or the high-altitude falling objects are rebounded by dispersing the stressed area in the protection pad, the impact force of the hail or the high-altitude falling objects on the photovoltaic module is counteracted, and the photovoltaic module is protected from being damaged by the hail or the high-altitude falling objects. Therefore, the photovoltaic module is protected from being damaged, and the protection effect is very good).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CAO teaches the mechanical resilience and mitigation layer comprises a reservoir that contains a liquid (see the encapsulation layer 111 that contains the dilatant fluid (Omega-3) 112; see [n0029], [n0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CAO teaches the mechanical resilience and mitigation layer comprises a reservoir that contains a viscous liquid (see the encapsulation layer 111 that contains the dilatant fluid (Omega-3) 112, wherein Omega-3 is a viscous liquid; see [n0029], [n0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CAO teaches the mechanical resilience and mitigation layer comprises a reservoir that contains a viscous liquid that is transparent (see the encapsulation layer 111 that contains the dilatant fluid (Omega-3) 112, wherein Omega-3 is a viscous liquid that is transparent; see [n0029], [n0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CAO teaches the mechanical resilience and mitigation layer comprises a reservoir that contains oil (see the encapsulation layer 111 that contains the dilatant fluid (Omega-3) 112, wherein Omega-3 is an oil; see [n0029], [n0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CAO teaches the reservoir (see the encapsulation layer 111) is enclosed within an enclosing rim that forms a frame separating the reservoir and the PV regions (see the enclosing rim that forms a frame separating the encapsulation layer 111 and the plurality of battery cell areas on the back side of the protective unit 11; see Fig. 3 attached below).
PNG
media_image2.png
432
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO (CN 216531207 U, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CAO teaches the mechanical resilience and mitigation layer comprises a reservoir that contains a viscous liquid (I) that is translucent, and (II) that has viscosity in a range of 2 to 999 centipoise (see the encapsulation layer 111 that contains the dilatant fluid (Omega-3) 112, wherein Omega-3 is translucent and a viscous liquid that has viscosity in a range of 20 to 60 centipoise, which are material property of Omega-3; see [n0029], [n0034]). Regarding the claimed “enables passage therethrough of at least 75 percent of incoming light”, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the high transmittance of the liquid requires a thin layer of the liquid, which provides a weak protection, but when the low transmittance of the liquid results in low power generation. As the protection and the power generation are variables that can be modified by adjusting the light transmittance, the precise light transmittance would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed light transmittance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the light transmittance in the apparatus of CAO to obtain the desired balance between the protection and the power generation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO (CN 216531207 U, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of BONNET (US 20150047694 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CAO teaches the mechanical resilience and mitigation layer is located above the top-side of the PV regions and provides mechanical resilience to the PV regions against incoming hail or debris (see the rejection of claim 1 and see Abstract and Figs. 1-5). Regarding the claimed “wherein a second mechanical resilience and mitigation layer is a mechanical reinforcement layer that is located beneath the bottom-side of the PV regions and provides additional mechanical reinforcement and mechanical resilience to the PV regions”, CAO does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, BONNET discloses a protective frontsheet and a protective backsheet for photovoltaic module (see Abstract), wherein the role of the backsheet is also to protect the cell against moisture, but also to ensure the electrical insulation of the cells [0003], wherein the protective backsheet can including impact modifiers [0056], which has a capability of mechanical resilience, mechanical reinforcement, and mitigation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the protective backsheet with impact modifiers on the back side of the plurality of battery cell areas in CAO as taught by BONNET, because the protective backsheet protects the cell against moisture, and ensure the electrical insulation of the cells, and has a capability of mechanical resilience, mechanical reinforcement, and mitigation.
Claims 12-14, 19, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO (CN 216531207 U, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of ZHU (US 20120291851 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding “an integrated cooling mechanism, which is an integral part of the PV device, configured to autonomously cool-down the PV regions and to reduce their temperature”, ZHU teaches an integrated cooling mechanism, which is an integral part of the PV device (see the container 7 with insulating liquid inside, which is an integral part of the photovoltaic module and has a capability of autonomously cooling-down the PV regions and to reduce their temperature; see Figs. 1-2, [0027]-[0028], and Abstract: this invention effectively cools the front and back surfaces of solar cells and quickly removes the heat of the working solar cells, which insures the solar cells working at a fairly high efficiency, increases the durability of the solar cells and reduces the power generation cost). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the container with insulating liquid inside, which is an integral part of the photovoltaic module in CAO as taught by ZHU, because the container with insulating liquid inside effectively cools the front and back surfaces of solar cells and quickly removes the heat of the working solar cells, which insures the solar cells working at a fairly high efficiency, increases the durability of the solar cells and reduces the power generation cost.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 12.
Modified CAO teaches the integrated cooling mechanism (see the container with insulating liquid inside) comprises a Coolant Reservoir (see the container) that is an integral part of the PV device (see the rejection of claim 12), wherein the Coolant Reservoir contains a coolant fluid (see the insulating liquid) that operates to reduce the temperature of the PV regions (see the rejection of claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 13.
Modified CAO teaches the Coolant Reservoir is located above the top-side of the PV regions (see Figs. 1-2 of ZHU).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 13.
Modified CAO teaches the Coolant is water or cold water (ZHU [0011] The insulating liquid is deionized water).
Regarding claim 25, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 13.
Modified CAO teaches the PV regions comprise: a first set of PV regions, that share a first common Coolant Reservoir located on top of them or beneath them (see the left half set of the plurality of battery cell areas, which share the left half portion of the container located on top of them) (see the rejection of claim 1, 12, 13); a second, different, set of PV regions, that share a second, different, common Coolant Reservoir located on top of them or beneath them (see the right half set of the plurality of battery cell areas, which share the right half portion of the container located on top of them) (see the rejection of claim 1, 12, 13).
Regarding claim 27, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 25.
Modified CAO teaches the first common Coolant Reservoir and the second common Coolant Reservoir are fluidly inter-connected, wherein Coolant that flows through the first common Coolant Reservoir also flows subsequently through the second common Coolant Reservoir (see Figs. 1-2 of ZHU, and the rejections of claim 12, 13, 25).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO (CN 216531207 U, see English Machine Translation) in view of ZHU (US 20120291851 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of BIEBER (US 20090038674 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 13.
Regarding the claimed “a set of one or more tubes, having an inlet configured to receive the Coolant, and having an outlet configured to output the Coolant; wherein the Coolant continuously circulates within the Coolant Reservoir and the set of one or more tubes; wherein the Coolant has viscosity in a range of 0.5 to 10 centipoise”, modified CAO teaches an inlet configured to receive the Coolant, and having an outlet configured to output the Coolant (ZHU [0010] An insulating liquid inlet and an insulating liquid outlet are arranged on the container); wherein the Coolant continuously circulates within the Coolant Reservoir and the set of one or more tubes (ZHU [0019] the insulating liquid inlet and outlet allow the insulating liquid to flow over the surface of the solar cell. This cools the solar cell effectively and increases the efficiency of the photovoltaic power system); wherein the Coolant has viscosity in a range of 0.5 to 10 centipoise (ZHU [0011] The insulating liquid is deionized water; The deionized water has a viscosity of 1.00 cP), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “a set of one or more tubes”. However, BIEBER disclose a liquid coolant circulation system (not shown) by at least one input connector 11 and one output connector 12 (see [0022] and Fig. 1), wherein the input connector and the output connector have tube shape (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the inlet and the outlet so as to be a tube shape in modified CAO as taught by BIEBER, because the change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO (CN 216531207 U, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of HIGASHI (US 20100243029 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed “wherein at least some of said PV regions are flexible and rollable solar cells, that do not break upon flexing or rolling or unrolling”, HIGASHI discloses a flexible solar cell module that includes a flexible insulating substrate (The flexible solar cell module has a capability of being rollable, that do not break upon flexing) (see Abstract and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the flexible solar cell module in the device of CAO as taught by HIGASHI, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO (CN 216531207 U, see English Machine Translation) in view of ZHU (US 20120291851 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of ERDEMLI (US 20090260675 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified CAO teaches the PV device comprises, from top to bottom: said mechanical resilience and mitigation layer (see the protective pad); beneath it, said cooling mechanism which runs or traverses within the PV device (see the container 7 with insulating liquid inside which runs within the PV device); beneath it, said PV regions that convert incoming light into electricity (see the plurality of battery cell areas on the back side of the protective unit 11, which has a capability of converting incoming light into electricity) (see the rejection of claims 1, 12, 13).
Regarding the claimed “a top-side encapsulant and top-sheet; a bottom-side encapsulant and backsheet”, ERDEMLI discloses encapsulation of solar modules, wherein a front protective sheet is placed over the front encapsulant layer and a back protective sheet is placed under the back encapsulant layer (see Figs. 1-2 and [0016]), wherein the front protective sheet & the front encapsulant layer, and the back protective sheet & the back encapsulant layer provides protection of the solar module. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the front protective sheet & the front encapsulant layer, and the back protective sheet & the back encapsulant layer in modified CAO as taught by ERDEMLI, because the front protective sheet & the front encapsulant layer, and the back protective sheet & the back encapsulant layer provides protection of the solar module.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights