DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 07/07/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Status of the Rejections
The rejection of claim 2-15 and 17-21 from the Office Action mailed on 04/07/2026 is maintained. All other rejections from the Office Action dated 04/07/2026 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below for claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LUNT, III et al. (US 2014/0283896 A1) (cited in IDS dated 06/04/2025).
Regarding claim 2, Lunt, III discloses a solar concentrator device (500, fig. 5, [0039-0056]) comprising:
a waveguide having a first refractive index (implicit or inherent) and comprising a luminophore (figure 5; see also figure 3 that shows the waveguide 310 comprising transparent substrate 315 and luminophore 320; [0035] and [0039]);
PNG
media_image1.png
272
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a photovoltaic component (solar array) operably coupled to the waveguide (“the SC 500 comprises a plurality of solar arrays positioned at the first surface 520 and/or the second surface 525”, [0040]; see also [0028] that discloses solar arrays are positioned on top and/or bottom of the waveguide, rather than an edge of the waveguide); and
an uninterrupted film (one of first wavelength-dependent mirror 505 and second wavelength-dependent mirror 530) having a second refractive index (implicit or inherent),
the uninterrupted film (530) having a first film surface (top surface) and a second film surface (bottom surface) opposite the first film surface (top surface), the first film surface (top surface) disposed on the waveguide (see annotated figure), and the second film surface configured to be disposed on a substrate ([0056] discloses the solar concentrator is disposed on a vehicle, whose surface is interpreted as the substrate),
wherein the entire solar concentrator device has an average visible transmittance (AVT) of greater than or equal to 50% (see figure 8A that shows VIS absorption being less than 0.3, i.e. the AVT being at least 70%).
Lunt, III further discloses that the waveguide comprises polymer PMMA substrate ([0035]) similar to instant application ([0086]) having luminophore (320) such as cyanine dyes ([0044]) similar to instant application ([0088]).
Lunt, III further discloses the film comprises SiO2 material ([0041]) similar to instant application [[0039]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP §2112.01.
Since the waveguide and the film of Lunt, III are made of same materials as in that case of the instant application, the refractive indices of the waveguide and film of Lunt, III would be same as instant application, and the second refractive index would be lower than the first refractive index.
Regarding claim 3, Lunt, III further discloses that the luminophore includes an organic molecule ([0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Lunt, III further discloses that the luminophore includes an inorganic molecule ([0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Lunt, III further discloses that the luminophore is configured to emit near infrared (NIR) light ([0043] and claim 7).
Regarding claim 6, Lunt, III further discloses that luminophore has a maximum peak emission in the NIR spectrum ([0043] and figure 8A).
Regarding claim 7, Lunt, III further discloses that the photovoltaic component includes a copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) photovoltaic cell ([0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Lunt, III further discloses that the photovoltaic component includes a gallium arsenide (GaAs) solar cell ([0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Lunt, III further discloses that the first film surface is disposed directly on the waveguide (see annotated fig. or figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Lunt, III further discloses an adhesive between the first film surface and the waveguide (mirror comprises alternating layers as disclosed in [0041], and thus the intervening TiO2 would be interpreted as the claimed adhesive as it allows for connection between layers during the formation of the device).
Regarding claim 11, Lunt, III further discloses that the waveguide includes a first waveguide surface (top surface) and a second waveguide surface (bottom surface) opposite the first waveguide surface, and the photovoltaic component is disposed on the first waveguide surface (top surface) (fig. 5 and [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Lunt, III further discloses that the uninterrupted film (505) is disposed on the first waveguide surface (top surface).
Regarding claim 13, Lunt, III further discloses an edge of the photovoltaic component is less than or equal to 10 centimeters (cm) from an edge of the waveguide (figure 5 and [0040], the distance would between edges is zero).
Regarding claim 14, Lunt, III further discloses that the edge of the photovoltaic component abuts the edge of the waveguide (figure 5 and [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Lunt, III further discloses that wherein the second film surface configured to extend uninterrupted across the substrate (surface of the vehicle, [0056]).
Regarding claim 16, Lunt, III further discloses that the waveguide comprises polymer PMMA substrate ([0035]) similar to instant application ([0086]) having luminophore (320) such as cyanine dyes ([0044]) similar to instant application ([0088]).
Lunt, III further discloses the film comprises SiO2 material ([0041]) similar to instant application [[0039]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP §2112.01.
Thus, the first and second refractive indices of Lunt, III would be within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Lunt, III further discloses that the film or mirror comprises alternating layers ([0041]) and thus the intervening TiO2 would be interpreted as the claimed adhesive as it allows for connection between layers during the formation of the device.
Regarding claim 18, Lunt, III further discloses that the uninterrupted film comprises a SiO2 layer ([0040]) as in the case of the instant application ([0039].
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP §2112.01.
Thus, the film must have a tensile strength of greater than or equal to 0.05 MPa, and a Young's modulus of less than or equal to about 10 MPa.
Regarding claim 20, Lunt, III discloses a solar concentrator device comprising: a waveguide having a first refractive index ranging from 1.45 to 2.5,
the waveguide comprising a polymer substrate, and a plurality of luminophores throughout the polymer substrate;
a visibly transparent film directly on the waveguide, the visibly transparent film having a second refractive index ranging from 1.05 to 1.45; and a photovoltaic device operatively coupled to the waveguide, wherein the first refractive index is at least 0.1 greater than the second refractive index.
Regarding claim 20, Lunt, III discloses a solar concentrator device (500, fig. 5, [0039-0056]) comprising:
a waveguide having a first refractive index (implicit or inherent) (figure 5; see also figure 3 that shows the waveguide 310 comprising transparent substrate 315 and luminophore 320; [0035] and [0039]), the waveguide comprising a polymer substrate (315), and a plurality of luminophores (320) throughout the polymer substrate (315) (fig. 3 and [0035]);
a visibly transparent film (one of first wavelength-dependent mirror 505 and second wavelength-dependent mirror 530 that is made of visibly transparent material such as SiO2, [0041]) having a second refractive index of 1.45 (SiO2 has a refractive index of 1.45); and
a photovoltaic component (solar array) operably coupled to the waveguide (“the SC 500 comprises a plurality of solar arrays positioned at the first surface 520 and/or the second surface 525”, [0040]; see also [0028] that discloses solar arrays are positioned on top and/or bottom of the waveguide, rather than an edge of the waveguide).
Lunt, III further discloses that the waveguide comprises polymer PMMA substrate ([0035]) similar to instant application ([0086]) having luminophore (320) such as cyanine dyes ([0044]) similar to instant application ([0088]).
Lunt, III further discloses the film comprises SiO2 material ([0041]) similar to instant application ([0039]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP §2112.01.
Since the waveguide and the film of Lunt, III are made of same materials as in that case of the instant application, the refractive indices of the waveguide and film of Lunt, III would be same as instant application, and the first refractive index would be at least 0.1 greater than the second refractive index.
Regarding claim 21, Lunt, III discloses a solar concentrator device (500, fig. 5, [0039-0056]) comprising:
a visibly transparent luminescent solar concentrator (waveguide) having a first refractive index (implicit or inherent) (figure 5; see also figure 3 that shows the waveguide 310 comprising transparent substrate 315 and luminophore 320; [0035] and [0039]);
a visibly transparent film (second wavelength-dependent mirror 530 that is made, for example of visibly transparent material SiO2, [0041]) having a second refractive index (implicit or inherent) that is configured to be directly coupled to an opaque, curved, solid substrate (the device is capable of being place on opaque, curved, solid substrate as disclosed in [0056])
a photovoltaic component (solar array) operably coupled to the visibly transparent luminescent solar concentrator (“the SC 500 comprises a plurality of solar arrays positioned at the first surface 520 and/or the second surface 525”, [0040]; see also [0028] that discloses solar arrays are positioned on top and/or bottom of the waveguide, rather than an edge of the waveguide).
Lunt, III further discloses that the waveguide comprises polymer PMMA substrate ([0035]) similar to instant application ([0086]) having luminophore (320) such as cyanine dyes ([0044]) similar to instant application ([0088]).
Lunt, III further discloses the film comprises SiO2 material ([0041]) similar to instant application ([0039]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP §2112.01.
Since the waveguide and the film of Lunt, III are made of same materials as in that case of the instant application, the refractive indices of the waveguide and film of Lunt, III would be same as instant application, and the second refractive index would be lower than the first refractive index.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunt, III as applied above.
Regarding claim 19, Lunt, III does not disclose that that the uninterrupted film has a thickness ranging from 0.1 µm to 1 mm.
Regarding the limitation “”, selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of “” as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12,336,322 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent encompass all the limitations of the pending claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 2-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
On pages 8-9 of Remarks, Applicant argues that Lunt, III does not disclose the refractive indices as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lunt, III further discloses that the waveguide comprises polymer PMMA substrate ([0035]) similar to instant application ([0086]) having luminophore (320) such as cyanine dyes ([0044]) similar to instant application ([0088]). Lunt, III further discloses the film comprises SiO2 material ([0041]) similar to instant application [[0039]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP §2112.01.
Since the waveguide and the film of Lunt, III are made of same materials as in that case of the instant application, the refractive indices of the waveguide and film of Lunt, III would be same as instant application, and the second refractive index would be lower than the first refractive index.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights