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 .
Summary
This is the response to the communication filed on 05/01/2026.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Election/Restrictions
The Applicants elected group 1, claims 1-18, along with the amendment to claim 19 to depend on claim 1. The argument is persuasive and the restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
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 11-18 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11-18 recites the broad recitation (“10 minutes or less” in claim 11, “absorbs at least 75% of visible light” in claim 14, “absorbs at least 75% of ultra-violet light” in claim 15, “absorbs at least 95% of visible light and at least 95% of ultraviolet light” in claim 16, “absorbs at least 75% of infrared light” in claim 17 and “to less than 1%” in claim 18), and the claim also recites “5 minutes or less” in claim 11, “at least 80% of visible light” in claim 14, “at least 80% of ultra-violet light” in claim 15, “at least 96% of visible light and at least 96% of ultraviolet light” in claim 16, “at least 80% of infrared light” in claim 17 and “less than 0.9% in claim 18, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 12-13 are rejected as dependents of claim 11.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the power delivery performance" in line 1 and “the field” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the perimeter of the non-reflective surface” in line 2 and “the perimeter of the rear surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the perimeter of the bifacial photovoltaic device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the current” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the time lapse” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the temperature” in line 2 and “the Voc” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the irradiance” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pilat et al. (FR3126569 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 1, Pilat discloses a method of measuring the power delivery performance (measuring the output current) in-situ of a bifacial photovoltaic device (bifacial solar units 2 and 3) installed in the field having a front surface and a rear surface [0063-0070], the method comprising:
(a-2) arranging a substantially non-reflective surface 21 or 23 (screens 21 and 23 are opaque to solar radiation [0051]) near the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic device (paragraph [0063] discloses screen 21 is deployed to cover the rear surface of photovoltaic module 4 of the unit 2; paragraph [0064] discloses screen 23 is deployed to cover the rear surface of the photovoltaic module 5 of unit 3); and
(b) measuring the power delivery performance (measuring the output current) of the bifacial photovoltaic device [0063-0064].
Addressing claims 2-4, figs. 1-2 show the photovoltaic device is a photovoltaic panel comprising more than one electrically connected photovoltaic modules 4 and 5 arranged in a plane.
Addressing claim 5, figs. 10-13 show the screen, as the structural equivalence to the claimed non-reflective surface, comprises more than one interlocked sub-units 90.
Addressing claim 6, figs. 1-2 show the screen covers the entirety of the respective surface of the bifacial photovoltaic module; therefore, the screen is substantially coextensive with the perimeter of the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic device.
Addressing claim 9, figs. 1-2 show that there is no baffle surrounding the perimeter of the bifacial photovoltaic device.
Addressing claims 14-18, Pilat discloses the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic cell is covered by the screen that is entirely opaque to solar radiation, which absorbs the claimed range of visible light of claim 14, the claimed range of ultra-violet light of claim 15, the ranges of visible light and ultra-violet light of claim 16, the range of infrared light of claim 17 and reduces the range of irradiance of claim 18.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deline et al. (IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, Vol. 7, No. 2, March 2017, 575-580).
Addressing claim 1, Deline discloses a method of measuring the power delivery performance in-situ of a bifacial photovoltaic device installed in the field (fig. 7, Abstract) having a front surface and a rear surface (fig. 7), the method comprising:
(a-2) arranging the substantially non-reflective surface (dark ground cover in fig. 7) near the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic device (fig. 7); and
(b) measuring the power delivery performance of the bifacial photovoltaic device (current-voltage IV curves were collected, which corresponds to the step of measuring the power delivery performance, as disclosed in section III. Indoor and Outdoor STC Module Measurements).
Addressing claims 2-3, fig. 7 of Deline shows the photovoltaic module comprising more than one electrically connected photovoltaic cells arranged in a plane.
Addressing claim 4, fig. 5 shows a photovoltaic panel comprising multiple electrically connected photovoltaic modules arranged in a plane along the same row.
Addressing claim 6, section III. Indoor and Outdoor STC Module Measurements section discloses that for Grear ≈ 0 is achieved by covering the back of the module with a black opaque blanket, which situates the perimeter of the black opaque blanket, as the structural equivalence of the non-reflective surface, is substantially coextensive with the perimeter of the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic device.
Addressing claim 9, fig. 7 does not show baffle surrounding the perimeter of the bifacial photovoltaic device.
Addressing claims 14-18, Deline discloses the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic cell is covered by a black opaque blanket (section III. Indoor and Outdoor STC Module Measurements), which absorbs the claimed range of visible light of claim 14, the claimed range of ultra-violet light of claim 15, the ranges of visible light and ultra-violet light of claim 16, the range of infrared light of claim 17 and reduces the range of irradiance of claim 18.
Addressing claim 19, Deline discloses the steps of measuring the in-situ measured power delivery performance of the bifacial photovoltaic device installed in the field and operating (see the rejection of claim 1 above), and
comparing the in-situ measured power delivery performance of the photovoltaic device to the power delivery performance of the photovoltaic device measured at the manufacturing facility (section C. Bifacial Measurement Results and Discussion discloses the measured power delivery performances between indoor, i.e. in the manufacturing facility, and outdoor, i.e. the bifacial photovoltaic device installed in the field, are compared).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deline et al. (IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, Vol. 7, No. 2, March 2017, 575-580) in view of Pilat et al. (FR3126569 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 5, Deline is silent regarding the non-reflective surface comprises more than one interlocked sub-units.
Pilat discloses a method for measuring photovoltaic energy production; wherein, the surface of the bifacial photovoltaic module is covered by a non-reflective surface 20 that is made of multiple interlocked sub-units 90 (fig. 10, paragraph [0051] discloses the screen 20 is entirely opaque to solar radiation to shield the respective surface of the bifacial photovoltaic cell 100% from solar radiation).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Deline by substituting the light shielding blanket in fig. 7 with the known light shielding structure 20 comprising multiple interlocked sub-units as disclosed by Pilat in order to obtain the predictable result of blocking light from impinging on a surface of the bifacial photovoltaic module during evaluation (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deline et al. (IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, Vol. 7, No. 2, March 2017, 575-580) in view of Sheng et al. (CN 106452361 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 7-8, Deline discloses the rear side of the bifacial photovoltaic module is covered with a black opaque blanket, as the structural equivalence to the claimed non-reflective surface, to achieve Grear ≈ 0. However, Deline does not describe in enough detail to deduce whether the non-reflective surface is positioned in contact with the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic device.
Sheng discloses a testing method for bifacial photovoltaic module; wherein, the rear surface of the module is covered by low-reflectivity light-shielding plate 104 [0011 and 0030] that is positioned in contact with the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic module (fig. 1; paragraph [0034] discloses the shielding plate 104 is spaced less than 3 mm apart from the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic module, which implies contact between the rear surface and the light shielding plate when the distance is zero).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Deline with the known arrangement where the light-shielding plate is positioned to contact the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic module as disclosed by Sheng in order to obtain the predictable result of shielding the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic module to achieve Grear ≈ 0 during the evaluation process (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pilat et al. (FR3126569 with provided machine English translation) in view of Deline et al. (IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, Vol. 7, No. 2, March 2017, 575-580).
Addressing claim 10, Pilat further discloses the steps:
conducting a first measurement of the current characteristic of the bifacial photovoltaic device without the non-reflective surface applied thereto (paragraph [0069] and fig. 21 show the step of overall measurement of energy production where the output currents are measured without the deployment of the non-reflective surfaces 20-23);
applying the non-reflective surface to the rear side of the bifacial photovoltaic device or arranging the substantially non-reflective surface near the rear surface of the bifacial photovoltaic device (fig. 18 and paragraph [0064]); and
conducting a second measurement of the current characteristic of the bifacial photovoltaic device after applying the non-reflective surface to the rear side of the bifacial photovoltaic device [0064].
Pilat is silent regarding the measurement step includes measuring voltage along with the current.
Deline discloses a method for evaluating the performance of the bifacial photovoltaic module including the step of covering the rear side of the bifacial photovoltaic module with a non-reflective surface to reduce irradiation to zero; wherein, the method comprises measuring the current and voltage from the bifacial photovoltaic module (section B. Bifacial Module Irradiance Response Theory).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Pilat with the step of measuring the current and voltage of the bifacial photovoltaic module disclosed by Deline in order to calculate the module power of the photovoltaic module (Deline, section B. Bifacial Module Irradiance Response Theory).
Addressing claims 11-12, Pilat discloses in paragraph [0070] the desire to shorten the time between measurements in order to limit any possible fouling of the clean unit; therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed time lapse between conducting the first measurement and conducting the second measurement in the claimed ranges by perform routine experimentation with the time between the measurements in order to optimize the reduction in foiling of the clean unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 05/21/2026
Prosecution Insights