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 .
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.
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 2 and 8 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.
Claim 2 sets forth “at least one connection wire” and subsequently refers to “the connection wire” which does not have proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of this Office Action, “the connection wire” will be treated as if it reads “the at least one connection wire”.
Claim 8 contains the limitation “Poly(vinyl formal) coating” which is unclear. Is the claim intended to say Poly(vinyl fluoride) coating? Additionally, based on the language of claim 6, from which claim 8 depends, which uses the limitation “and/or” it is unclear if both the adhesive coating and fireproof coating are required in claim 8. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 8 will be treated in the same manner as claim 6.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willham et al. (US 2012/0117896).
Regarding claim 1, Willham discloses a photovoltaic module in Figures 4A-B and 5, comprising:
a light-transmitting panel (130a on front) ([84] and [51]);
a back plate (130a on rear) disposed at a side (rear side) of the light-transmitting panel;
a photovoltaic cell layer (OPV material 124 in component 104) disposed between the light-transmitting panel (130a on front) and the back plate (130a on rear) (Figures 2 and 5 and [35]-[36]); and
a support plate (encapsulant layer 120) disposed between the photovoltaic cell layer and the back plate ([36] and [53]-[54]);
wherein the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the photovoltaic cell layer, and the support plate are all curved structures (Figures 4A-4B and [34]), and the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the support plate, and the photovoltaic cell layer have shapes adapted to each other (Figure 4A and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham additionally discloses that the back plate comprises:
a substrate (rear substrate 130a);
and an adhesive coating (tie layer 142) disposed at a side of the substrate (rear substrate 130a) close to the light-transmitting panel (front substrate 130a) (Figure 5 and [52]).
Regarding claim 8, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham additionally discloses that the adhesive coating (tie layer 142) is a fluoropolymer coating or an EthyleneVinylAcetate (EVA) coating ([52]).
Regarding claim 9, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham additionally discloses that the back plate comprises a flexible plate ([31] and [53], the components of the module can be flexible), a surface of the flexible plate away from the photovoltaic cell layer (104) being provided with a concave-convex structure (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham additionally discloses a first adhesive layer (tie layer 146) disposed between the light-transmitting panel (130a on front) and the photovoltaic cell layer (124) and used for adhering the light-transmitting panel to the photovoltaic cell layer (Figure 5 and [52]); a second adhesive layer (tie layer 142) disposed between the back plate (130a) and the support plate (120) and used for adhering the back plate to the support plate (Figures 2 and 5 and [52]); and a third adhesive layer disposed between the photovoltaic cell layer (124) and the support plate (120) and used for adhering the photovoltaic cell layer to the support plate (As discussed in [38], the layer 120 can include different adhesive materials which reads on a third adhesive layer between the photovoltaic cell layer and the support plate).
Regarding claim 14, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham additionally discloses that the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the support plate, and the photovoltaic cell layer are all multi-segment curved structures (Figures 1, 4A-B and 5).
Regarding claim 15, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham additionally discloses that the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer, and the third adhesive layer all comprise any one of Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA) copolymer, Polyethylene (POE), or Polyvinyl Butyral (PVB) ([52] and [38]).
Regarding claim 18, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham additionally discloses that the support plate and the back plate are integrally formed as a single-piece structure (140a) ([66], see one piece laminate assembly in Figure 5).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Willham discloses a building comprising a roof ([32]-[33]), the roof comprising:
a photovoltaic module in Figures 4A-B and 5, comprising:
a light-transmitting panel (130a on front) ([84] and [51]);
a back plate (130a on rear) disposed at a side (rear side) of the light-transmitting panel;
a photovoltaic cell layer (OPV material 124 in component 104) disposed between the light-transmitting panel (130a on front) and the back plate (130a on rear) (Figures 2 and 5 and [35]-[36]); and
a support plate (encapsulant layer 120) disposed between the photovoltaic cell layer and the back plate ([36] and [53]-[54]);
wherein the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the photovoltaic cell layer, and the support plate are all curved structures (Figures 4A-4B and [34]), and the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the support plate, and the photovoltaic cell layer have shapes adapted to each other (Figure 4A and 5).
Claims 1, 6, 13-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galliano et al. (US 2014/0144491).
Regarding claim 1, Galliano discloses a photovoltaic module in Figure 4, comprising:
a light-transmitting panel ([36], cells are covered with a front transparent layer);
a back plate (structural substrate 7) disposed at a side (rear side) of the light-transmitting panel ([93]);
a photovoltaic cell layer (3) disposed between the light-transmitting panel and the back plate ([36] and Figure 4, the cells are between the front transparent layer and the rear structural substrate 7); and
a support plate (back sheet 25) disposed between the photovoltaic cell layer (3) and the back plate (7) ([83]);
wherein the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the photovoltaic cell layer, and the support plate are all curved structures (Figure 4, see corrugated curvature 2 of module), and the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the support plate, and the photovoltaic cell layer have shapes adapted to each other (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Galliano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Galliano additionally discloses that the back plate comprises: a substrate (7); and an adhesive coating (adhesive layer 9b) disposed at a side of the substrate close to the light-transmitting panel (Figures 3 and 4 and [88]).
Regarding claim 13, Galliano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Galliano additionally discloses that the photovoltaic cell layer comprises a plurality of crystalline silicon solar cells connected to each other ([30]).
Regarding claim 14, Galliano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Galliano additionally discloses that the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the support plate, and the photovoltaic cell layer are all multi-segment curved structures (See corrugations 2 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Galliano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Galliano additionally discloses that the support plate and the back plate are integrally formed as a single-piece structure (laminate assembly is formed into one piece, [105]).
Regarding claim 19, Galliano discloses a roof ([16]) comprising photovoltaic module in Figure 4, comprising:
a light-transmitting panel ([36], cells are covered with a front transparent layer);
a back plate (structural substrate 7) disposed at a side (rear side) of the light-transmitting panel ([93]);
a photovoltaic cell layer (3) disposed between the light-transmitting panel and the back plate ([36] and Figure 4, the cells are between the front transparent layer and the rear structural substrate 7); and
a support plate (back sheet 25) disposed between the photovoltaic cell layer (3) and the back plate (7) ([83]);
wherein the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the photovoltaic cell layer, and the support plate are all curved structures (Figure 4, see corrugated curvature 2 of module), and the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the support plate, and the photovoltaic cell layer have shapes adapted to each other (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, Galliano discloses a building comprising a roof ([16]) comprising a photovoltaic module in Figure 4, comprising:
a light-transmitting panel ([36], cells are covered with a front transparent layer);
a back plate (structural substrate 7) disposed at a side (rear side) of the light-transmitting panel ([93]);
a photovoltaic cell layer (3) disposed between the light-transmitting panel and the back plate ([36] and Figure 4, the cells are between the front transparent layer and the rear structural substrate 7); and
a support plate (back sheet 25) disposed between the photovoltaic cell layer (3) and the back plate (7) ([83]);
wherein the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the photovoltaic cell layer, and the support plate are all curved structures (Figure 4, see corrugated curvature 2 of module), and the light-transmitting panel, the back plate, the support plate, and the photovoltaic cell layer have shapes adapted to each other (Figure 4).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willham et al. (US 2012/0117896), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ehret (DE 19603540A1, see English machine translation provided for mapping).
Regarding claim 2, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham does not disclose that the support plate has a wire routing hole; and the photovoltaic module further comprises a wire harness disposed between the support plate and the back plate, the wire harness comprising at least one connection wire, and the at least one connection wire being electrically connected to the photovoltaic cell layer through the wire routing hole.
Ehret discloses a photovoltaic module in Figures 2 and 3 comprising a support plate (rear of solar element 58) has a wire routing hole (See hole in Figure 3) and a wire harness (62) comprising at least one connection wire (60), and the at least one connection wire being electrically connected to the photovoltaic cell layer through the wire routing hole (abstract and Page 4, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a wire routing hole and a wire harness to the support plate in the device of Willham wherein the wire harness is disposed between the support plate and the back plate, the wire harness comprising at least one connection wire, and the at least one connection wire being electrically connected to the photovoltaic cell layer through the wire routing hole, as taught by Ehret, because it would amount to the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 3-5, 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willham et al. (US 2012/0117896), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham does not disclose that the support plate has a thickness greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 0.3 mm and the back plate has a thickness greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 0.3 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to change the thickness of support plate and the back plate in the device of Willham, since 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).
Regarding claim 4, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham additionally discloses a using a polyethylene glycol terephthalate material in the photovoltaic module ([44]), but Willham does not explicitly discloses that the support plate is a Polyethylene glycol terephthalate (PET) plate or an Expandable Polyethylene (EPE) plate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a polyethylene glycol terephthalate plate as a material for the support plate since it is a known suitable material for an encapsulant resin material in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when doing so.
Regarding claim 7, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham does not disclose that the substrate has a thickness consistent with a thickness of the support plate; and a material of the substrate is identical to a material of the support plate. However, adding a substrate with the same material and thickness as the support plate to the device of Willham would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed and would be a mere duplication of parts of the device. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 16, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham does not disclose that the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer, and the third adhesive layer each have a thickness ranging from 0.3mm to 0.8mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to change the thickness of the first, second and third adhesive layers in the device of Willham, since 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).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willham et al. (US 2012/0117896), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Stancel et al. (US 2010/0065116).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Willham discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Willham does not discloses that the flexible plate comprises an aluminum foil plate, the aluminum foil plate has a thickness ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm.
Stancel discloses a photovoltaic module in Figure 1C comprising a flexible back plate (20) comprising an aluminum foil plate ([34] and [96]), the aluminum foil plate (20) has a thickness ranging from 50 to 200 µm (0.05 mm to 0.2mm) ([34]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the flexible plate of Willham to include an aluminum foil plate with the claimed thickness, as taught by Stancel, because an aluminum foil backsheet is a low cost, lightweight, corrosion resistant material that reduces cost and simplifies module design (Stancel, [34]).
Modified Willham does not disclose the specifically claimed thickness range of 0.1mm to 0.3mm; however, 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galliano et al. (US 2014/0144491), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of UTO et al. (US 2018/0062005).
Regarding claim 11, Galliano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Galliano additionally discloses that the photovoltaic cell layer comprises a crystalline silicon solar cell ([30]), but Galliano does not explicitly disclose that the crystalline silicon solar cell comprises at least one of a Passivated Emitter and Rear Cell (PERC) solar cell, a Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact (TOPCON) solar cell, a Cross Back Contact (XBC) solar cell, a MetalWrapThrough (MWT) solar cell, or a crystalline silicon Heterojunction with Intrinsic Thin-layer (HJT) solar cell.
UTO discloses a crystalline silicon solar cell in Figure 4 comprising a crystalline silicon Heterojunction with Intrinsic Thin-layer (HJT) ([84]-[88]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the crystalline silicon solar cell of Galliano with the crystalline silicon Heterojunction with Intrinsic Thin-layer (HJT) solar cell taught by UTO, because the solar cell of UTO has a high conversion efficiency (UTO, [23]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (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 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights