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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 6
Claim 5 requires a second TPU layer in contact with a first surface of the optical layer. Similarly, claim 6 requires a third TPU layer in contact with a second surface of the optical layer, opposite the first surface. However, claim 1, from which claims 5 and 6 depend, requires an optical layer in contact with a TPU layer.
It is unclear if the second and/or third TPU layers recited in claims 5-6 correspond to the TPU layer of claim 1. In the event that they do not correspond, it is unclear how a second and third TPU layer are in contact with opposing surfaces of the optical layer, as said layer is already in contact with a further TPU layer (recited in claim 1).
For purposes of examination on the merits, the limitation “in contact” is not interpreted to include direct contact.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
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) 1-6, 9, 10, 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2014/197393 A1, Hu et al. (hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claims 1 and 14
Hu teaches a laminate (corresponding to a laminated encapsulation structure) [Figs. 3, 6, 10 and 13, paras. 0045, 0281, 0285 and 0329] comprising:
first and second substantially rigid sheets (corresponding to top and bottom environmental protective covers 103, each comprising glass) [Fig. 6 and para. 0281]; and
an interlayer (corresponding to wavelength conversion composition 101) disposed between the first and second rigid sheets (103) [Fig. 6 and para. 0281], wherein the interlayer (101) comprises:
a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) layer (corresponding wavelength conversion layer 101’ comprising TPU as a host polymer) comprising luminescent solar concentrators (chromophore 109) within the layer (the wavelength conversion layer 101 may be embodied as shown in Figure 13) [Figs. 6 and 13, paras. 0013-0015, 0080, 0309, 0317 and 0329]; and
an optical layer (corresponding to further wavelength conversion layer 101’’ OR to a reflective mirror or microstructured layer provided on a surface thereof to increase internal reflection) in contact with the TPU layer (in the case the optical layer is interpreted as the mirror or microstructured layer, it is noted that said layer is disclosed to be provided in between the wavelength conversion composition and a glass sheet) [Figs. 6, 10 and 13, paras. 0288, 0313 and 0332],
the optical layer comprising one or more materials or components (corresponding to IR reflective agents, microstructures or mirror component) that reflect light into the TPU layer (101’) [Figs. 13-14, paras. 0028, 0240, 0313 and 0332].
PNG
media_image1.png
278
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hu, Fig. 6 (left) and Fig. 13 (right)
Regarding claims 2 and 15
Hu teaches the laminate and interlayer as set forth above, wherein the optical layer (layer 101’’ OR microstructured/mirror layer) reflects ultraviolet (UV) light or infrared (IR) light into the TPU layer (101’) [Figs. 13-14, paras. 0028, 0240, 0313 and 0332, IR reflective agents].
Regarding claims 3 and 18
Hu discloses the laminate and interlayer as set forth above, wherein the optical layer (corresponding to further wavelength conversion layer 101’’) comprises TPU [Figs. 6 and 13, paras. 0013-0015, 0080, 0309, 0317 and 0329].
Regarding claim 4
Hu discloses the interlayer as set forth above, wherein the optical layer (corresponding to further wavelength conversion layer 101’’) comprises PMMA [paras. 0013-0014].
Regarding claim 5
Hu discloses the interlayer as set forth above, wherein further comprising a second TPU layer (multiple wavelength conversion layers may be present) in contact with a first surface of the optical layer (corresponding to layer 101’’) [Figs. 13-14, paras. 0317].
Regarding claim 6
Hu teaches the interlayer as set forth above, further comprising a third TPU layer (multiple wavelength conversion layers may be present) in contact with a second surface of the optical layer (corresponding to layer 101’’) opposite the first surface [Figs. 13-14, para. 0317].
Regarding claims 9 and 20
Hu discloses the laminate and interlayer as set forth above, wherein the optical layer comprises an IR reflector (layer 101’’ comprises a composition including IR reflective agents) [Figs. 13-14, paras. 0028, 0240, 0313 and 0332].
Regarding claim 10
Hu discloses the interlayer as set forth above, wherein the IR reflector (IR reflective agents) is selected from a group consisting of infrared reflecting films, mirrors, polarized films, non-polarized films, multi-layer films, colored or tinted films, metal, or metal-based coatings, double or triple layer silver coatings, or coatings or films comprising tin oxide, metal oxide, gold, aluminum, nitride, halide, sulfide, germanium, silicon, quartz, and combinations thereof (the IR reflective agents comprises metal oxide, mica powder, composite oxide, Talc, titania, ceria, zirconia, silica, magnesia, clay, Kaolin, alumina, infrared pigment, or any combination thereof.) [paras. 0251 and 0288].
Regarding claim 16
Hu discloses the laminate as set forth above, wherein the first rigid sheet (103) is an outwardly facing side of the laminate and the optical layer (layer 101’’ OR microstructured/mirror layer) is disposed between the TPU layer (101’) and the second rigid sheet (103) (a microstructured layer may also be provided in between the wavelength conversion composition and a glass sheet) [see Figs. 12-14 and para. 0288].
Regarding claim 17
Hu discloses the laminate as set forth above, wherein the optical layer (layer 101’’ or microstructured/mirror layer) is bonded to the TPU layer (101’) [see Figs. 12-14 and para. 0288].
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.
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) 7-8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, as applied to claims 1-6, 9, 10, 14-18 and 20 above, and further in view of KR 20140111200 A, Hong et al.
All the limitations of claims 1 and 14 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 7 and 19
Hu does not teach the optical layer comprising a UV reflector.
Hong teaches a photovoltaic module comprising an optical layer (corresponding to second sealant 53) comprises a UV reflector (second sealant has a light reflective surface for reflecting UV rays) for reflecting ultraviolet rays not converted by a first encapsulation layer (51) thereby reducing the amount of heat generated due to ultraviolet rays [paras. 0048 and 0055-0056].
Hu and Hong are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic laminates comprising encapsulating optical interlayers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the optical layer of Hu to comprise a UV reflector, as in Hong, in order to reduce the amount of heat generated due to ultraviolet rays during use of the laminate (solar cell module).
Regarding claim 8
Modified Hu teaches the interlayer as set forth above, wherein the UV reflector is selected from a group consisting of polarizers, dichroic or reflective filter materials, e-PTFE films, aluminum sheets or foils, platinum, gold, rhodium, copper, silver and/or stainless steel films, and combinations thereof (the UV reflector comprises a UV-blocking coating film reading on “reflective filter materials) [Hong, para. 0056].
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu, as applied to claims 1-3, 9-18 and 20 above, and further in view of US 2014/0130864 A1, Lunt et al.
Regarding claim 11
Hu discloses the interlayer as set forth above.
Hu generally discloses the use of quantum dots [para. 0006]. Hu further discloses luminescent concentrators within the composition comprising chromophores.
Lunt shows that typical chromophores include materials such as organic phosphors, organic fluorophores, and colloidal quantum dots. [paras. 0005 and 0013].
Hu and Lunt are analogous inventions in the field of luminescent solar concentrating materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose from the finite number of identified, predictable chromophores disclosed in Lunt, which include quantum dots, with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Lunt teaches that quantum dots leads to the anticipated success and enhance the overall absorption efficiencies across the spectrum, said material is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claims 12 and 13
Modified Hu discloses the interlayer as set forth above, wherein the TPU layer (101’) has a quantum dot loading of less than about 1.0% (0.01%-3%) [Hu, para. 0231; Lunt, paras. 0005 and 0013].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
With regards to the limitation “wherein said TPU layer has a capture efficiency of at least about 3%”, because the structure of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170341346 A1, McDaniel et al. teaches a laminated glass luminescent concentrator comprising a solid medium containing a plurality of fluorophores 301 is disposed in between at least two sheets of glass 302 and 303 [Fig. 3, Abstract, para. 0059].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721