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 Interpretation
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “semi-rigid material layer” recited in line 2 of claim 3, the claim is interpreted in a manner consistent with the description in paragraph [0048] of the as-filed specification which describes a semi-rigid material as a material that has both a rigid property and a flexible property.
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 9-14 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. Specifically, claim 9 recites the limitation “the curve segment” in line 4, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While lines 2 and 3 of claim 9 do recite “a plurality of curve segments,” claim 9 does not previously recite “a curve segment,” therefore, the curve segment of the previously recited plurality of curve segments to which the limitation refers is unclear. Claims 10-14 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 9.
Claims 12-14 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. Specifically, claim 12 recites the limitation “the other part” in line 4, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the limitation will be treated as if it states “an other part.” Claims 13 and 14 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (WO 2019/196332 A1 – see attached machine translation) in view of Huang et al. (CN 218471963 U – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a curved photovoltaic module ([0007]) comprising: a solar cell unit ([0013]; [0069]; 2 in Fig. 1); and curved glass ([0068]; 1 in Fig. 1) and a curved back panel ([0070]; 3 in Fig. 1) that are disposed at two sides of the solar cell unit (1 and 3 in relation to 2 in Fig. 1), a first encapsulant film layer being arranged between the curved glass and the solar cell unit ([0072]; 4 in relation to 1 and 2 in Fig. 1), and a second encapsulant film layer being arranged between the curved back panel and the solar cell unit ([0072]; 5 in relation to 2 and 3 in Fig. 1).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose the first encapsulant film layer has a thickness ranging from 0.8 mm to 2 mm; and the second encapsulant film layer has a thickness ranging from 0.8 mm to 2 mm.
Huang discloses a photovoltaic module ([n0001]; Fig. 1) and further discloses first and second encapsulant films ([n0024]; 02 and 06 in Fig. 1) with a thickness of 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm ([n0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first and second encapsulant films of Cheng with a thickness ranging from 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm, as disclosed by Huang, because as evidenced by Huang, the use of encapsulant films with a thickness ranging from 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm in a photovoltaic module amounts to the use of a known dimension in the art for encapsulant films, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the encapsulant films of Cheng with a thickness of 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm based on the teaching of Huang.
It is noted that with regard to the overlapping thickness range of modified Cheng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose the curved back panel has a thickness ranging from 0.35 mm to 0.7 mm.
Huang discloses a photovoltaic module ([n0001]; Fig. 1) and further discloses the back panel with a thickness between 0.2 mm and 1 mm ([n0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the back panel of modified Cheng with a thickness between 0.2 mm and 1 mm, as disclosed by Huang, because as evidenced by Huang, the use of a back panel with a thickness between 0.2 mm and 1 mm in a photovoltaic module amounts to the use of a known dimension in the art for back panels in photovoltaic modules, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the back panel of modified Cheng with a thickness between 0.2 mm and 1mm based on the teaching of Huang.
It is noted that with regard to the overlapping thickness range of modified Cheng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 3, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Cheng does disclose the curved back panel is a polymer material layer including, but not limited to, polyvinyl fluoride, ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, etc. (Cheng – [0070]), modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose the curved back panel is a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) layer or a glass fiber material layer.
Huang discloses a photovoltaic module ([n0001]; Fig. 1) and further discloses the back panel is a PET layer or a glass fiber material layer ([n0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the back panel of modified Cheng with PET or a glass fiber, as disclosed by Huang, because as evidenced by Huang, the use of PET or a glass fiber as the material for a back panel of a photovoltaic module amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the back panel of modified Cheng with a PET or glass fiber material based on the teaching of Huang.
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a semi-rigid material layer,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng further discloses the curved back panel comprises a main body layer (Cheng – [0071] discloses an aluminum structural layer) and an encapsulation material layer arranged at each of both sides of the main body layer (Cheng – [0071] discloses the aluminum structural layer is disposed inside the flexible backsheet).
While modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose the main body layer having a greater thickness than the encapsulation material layer, modified Cheng does disclose by adding a water vapor barrier layer, the water vapor transmission rate of the flexible backsheet is improved, giving the curved photovoltaic tile extremely low water vapor transmission (Cheng – [0071]).
As the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the main body layer, with said material cost and operating efficiency both increasing as the thickness of the main body layer is increased, the precise thickness of the main body layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed main body layer thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the main body layer in the apparatus of modified Cheng to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Cheng does disclose the main body layer comprises an aluminum
plate (Cheng - [0071] discloses an aluminum structural layer), and further discloses a polymer material layer including, but not limited to, polyvinyl fluoride, ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, etc. (Cheng – [0070]), modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose the encapsulation material layer comprises a PET layer.
Huang discloses a photovoltaic module ([n0001]; Fig. 1) and further discloses the material of a back panel is PET ([n0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the encapsulation material layer of modified Cheng with PET, as disclosed by Huang, because as evidenced by Huang, the use of PET as a material for a back panel of a photovoltaic module amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the encapsulation material layer of modified Cheng with PET based on the teaching of Huang.
Regarding claim 6, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng further discloses the first encapsulant film comprises an EVA encapsulant film (Cheng – [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng further discloses a longitudinal projection of each of the curved back panel and the curved glass is a curve composed of a curve segment (Cheng – 1 and 3 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng further discloses a longitudinal projection of each of the curved back panel and the curved glass is a curve composed of a plurality of curve segments connected in sequence (Cheng – 1 and 3 in Fig. 1).
While modified Cheng does disclose the curve segment is in an arc shape (Cheng – segment of 1 and 3 in Fig. 1), modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an arc length to a corresponding chord length of the curve segment ranges from 1.03 to 1.67.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the curve segments of modified Cheng such that a ratio of an arc length to a corresponding chord length of the respective curve segment ranges from 1.03 to 1.67 because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng further discloses the longitudinal projections of the curved back panel and the curved glass comprise a plurality of peaks and valleys arranged alternately (Cheng – [0074]; peaks and valleys of 1 in relation to peaks and valleys of 3 in Fig. 1), and the plurality of peaks and valleys of each longitudinal projection are aligned (Cheng – peaks and valleys of 1 in relation to peaks and valleys of 3 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng further discloses the peaks of the longitudinal projections have the same curvature (Cheng – [0074]; peaks of 1 in relation to peaks of 3 in Fig. 1); and the plurality of valleys of the longitudinal projections have the same curvature (Cheng – [0074]; valleys of 1 in relation to valleys of 3 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng further discloses the solar cell unit comprises a plurality of solar cell electrically connected to each other (Cheng – [0069]), a part of each of the plurality of solar cells being located between a corresponding first peak of the plurality of first peaks and a corresponding second peak of the plurality of second peaks, and an other part of each of the plurality of solar cells being located between a corresponding first valley of the plurality of first valleys and a corresponding second valley of the plurality of second valleys (Cheng – 2 in relation to 1 and 3 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose a length of each of the plurality of solar cells is equal to a spacing between a highest point of the first peak and a lowest point of the first valley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each solar cell such that its length is equal to a spacing between a highest point of the first peak and a lowest point of the first valley in modified Cheng because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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).
While modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose a midline of each of the plurality of solar cells is coincident with an inflection line between the first peak and the first valley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrange each of the plurality of solar cells of modified Cheng such that each of the plurality of solar cells is coincident with an inflection line between the first peak and the first valley because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 15, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Cheng does disclose the thickness of the first encapsulant film layer and the thickness of the second encapsulant film layer ranges from 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm ([n0008]), modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the first encapsulant film layer is greater than that of the second encapsulant film layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first encapsulant film layer of modified Cheng with a thickness within the disclosed range of 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm and form the second encapsulant film layer within the disclosed range of 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm, such that the thickness of the first encapsulant film is greater than that of the second encapsulant film layer because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cheng further discloses both the first and second encapsulant film layers have a single-layer structure (Cheng – [0066], [0067], 4 and 5 in Fig. 1).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (WO 2019/196332 A1 – see attached machine translation) in view of Huang et al. (CN 218471963 U – see attached machine translation) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Goh et al. (US 2014/0093762).
Regarding claim 7, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Cheng does disclose the solar cell unit comprises a plurality of solar cells (Cheng – [0069]), the solar cell unit has a bending radius (Cheng – 21 in Fig. 1), and further discloses the longitudinal cross-sectional shape of each component, which is parallel to the extension direction of the wave, is a sine curve, the number of waves is 2 to 5, preferably 4 to 5, the undulation range of the peaks and valleys of the waves is 25 to 100 mm, preferably 40 to 100 mm (Cheng – [0074], modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of solar cells has a bending radius ranging from 25 mm to 200 mm.
Goh discloses a curved electronic module ([0002]) and further discloses if the radius of curvature is too small, stress is concentrated on the middle part of the battery cell, and if the radius of curvature is too large, it is difficult to control the radius of curvature ([0030]).
As the concentration of the stress and degree of control are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said bending radius, with said stress concentration and degree of control both increasing as the bending radius is decreased, the precise bending radius would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed bending radius cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the bending radius in the apparatus of modified Cheng, to obtain the desired balance between the concentration of the stress and the degree of control (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).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 14, modified Cheng discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Cheng does disclose the solar cell unit comprises a plurality of solar cells (Cheng – [0069]), the solar cell unit has a bending radius (Cheng – 21 in Fig. 1), and further discloses the longitudinal cross-sectional shape of each component, which is parallel to the extension direction of the wave, is a sine curve, the number of waves is 2 to 5, preferably 4 to 5, the undulation range of the peaks and valleys of the waves is 25 to 100 mm, preferably 40 to 100 mm (Cheng – [0074], modified Cheng does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of solar cells has a bending radius ranging from 25 mm to 200 mm.
Goh discloses a curved electronic module ([0002]) and further discloses if the radius of curvature is too small, stress is concentrated on the middle part of the battery cell, and if the radius of curvature is too large, it is difficult to control the radius of curvature ([0030]).
As the concentration of the stress and degree of control are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said bending radius, with said stress concentration and degree of control both increasing as the bending radius is decreased, the precise bending radius would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed bending radius cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the bending radius in the apparatus of modified Cheng, to obtain the desired balance between the concentration of the stress and the degree of control (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).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights