DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of February 26, 2026 is considered herein.
Claim 17 has been amended.
Claims 33-36 have been added.
Claims 1-16, 18-20, 24, 28, and 31 have been cancelled.
Claims 17, 21-23, 25-27, 29, 30, and 32-36 are pending and have been considered on the merits herein.
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(s) 17, 21-23, 25-30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENG et al (CN 205582951, citations from the previously supplied English translation), in view of CHEONG et al (US PG PUB 2013/0160839A1).
Regarding claim 36, DENG et al teaches a photovoltaic module (abstract and title, “anti PID photovoltaic module”, figures 1-4) comprising:
a glass panel (8, “glass cover-plate”),
a back panel (1, “backboard” or “back plate”, made of glass as detailed in Embodiment 3 on pages 3-4, as required in instant claim 21),
a cell string including a plurality of cells (4, silicon cell per the 5th paragraph of Embodiment one of page 3, connected via connectors 3 to show a string of photovoltaic cells in figures 1-4) encapsulated between the glass panel and the back panel (figures 1-4 show the cells to be sandwiched by the panels reading on encapsulation in a first interpretation, with encapsulant layer 2 providing encapsulation within the panels further reading on encapsulation), each respective cell of the cell string having a first side opposite a second side (wherein the first side is interpreted as the top and the second as the bottom or lower side of cells in figures 1-4),
a first film (7, “barrier film”) containing metal oxides and/or silicon oxides (6th paragraph of Embodiment one disclosing the barrier layer to include metal oxides and silicon oxides including titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, zinc oxide, stannum or tin oxide, silicon oxide and aluminum oxide) disposed between the glass panel (8) and the cell string (3/4) (wherein the orientation of the first film between these layers is shown in figures 1-4), wherein a part of the first film is positioned in direct contact with a surface of the glass panel (8) (see figures 1-4),
a second film (10, “barrier film”, embodiment 3) containing metal oxides and/or silicon oxides (6th paragraph of Embodiment one disclosing the barrier layer to include metal oxides and silicon oxides including titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, zinc oxide, stannum or tin oxide, silicon oxide and aluminum oxide) disposed between the back panel (1) and the cell string (3/4) (wherein the orientation of the first film between these layers is shown in figures 3-4), wherein a part of the second film (10 is positioned in direct contact with a surface of the back panel (1),
DENG teaches the first film (“barrier film” of DENG) can be made of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride (reading on silicon oxide) and silicon oxide in 6th paragraph of Embodiment one and the use of a monocrystalline silicon substrate in the 5th paragraph of Embodiment one. DENG fails to teach a first anti-reflective layer positioned in direct contact with the first side of each respective cell of the cell string, wherein a part of the first film is positioned in direct contact with the first anti-reflective layer for each respective cell of the cells, and a second anti-reflective layer positioned in direct contact with the second side of each respective cell of the cell string, wherein a part of the second film is positioned in direct contact with the second anti-reflective layer for each respective cell of the cells.
CHEONG et al teaches a monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic cell, as in that of DENG et al, as disclosed in the abstract, paragraph [0035] and figure 3. CHEONG et al further teaches the cell to be bifacial (abstract). CHEONG et al further teaches a passivation layer 1911 directly on the emitter (or instant cell of claim 17)(figure 3) to be make of silicon oxide in paragraph [0042], interpreted to be equivalent to the instant claim’s first anti-reflective layer (based on anti-reflective functionality present in the region (191), paragraph [0061]). Moreover, a passivation layer 1912 is shown to be present directly on top of layer 1911 (instant first anti-reflective layer) and made of a metal oxide (aluminum oxide, paragraph [0044]), interpreted to be equivalent to the first layer of the instant claim (based on use of the same material, as required by and overlapping with instant claim 30). Moreover, the second side (rear side of figure 3) of the device of CHEONG et al is taught to have a passivation layer 1921 present thereon (paragraph [0074]), made of silicon oxide (paragraph [0074]), interpreted to be equivalent to the instant claim’s second anti-reflective layer (based on the use of the same materials as the first anti-reflective functionality present in the region (191), paragraph [0061]). CHEONG et al teaches the use of a second film (1922) containing metal oxides and/or silicon oxides (aluminum oxide, paragraph [0074]) in direct contact with the second anti-reflective layer (1921) and when used as the cells of the cell strings of DENG et al, per the combination, would reflect the second film 1922 to be between the back panel of DENG et al and the cell string). The use of the stacks of layers on CHEONG et al on the surface of the cell maximize the amount of light incident the substrate while also improving passivation functionality (paragraphs [0060]-[0062], [0082]) generating a more effective cell with improved power generation.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the bifacial cell of CHEONG et al within the string of DENG et al (which features glass on the top and bottom of the module) so as to maximize the light impingement and power generation opportunity through the bifacial orientation. Furthermore, the use of the layers within the cell stack of CHEONG et al maximize the light impinging the cell with improved passivation, rendering the use of the cell of CHEONG et al within the double glass encapsulated cell of DENG obvious so as to maximize power generation.
Claim(s) 17, 21-23, 25-27, 29, 30, and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENG et al, in view of CHEONG et al and KOIKE et al (US PG PUB 2018/0013024).
Regarding claims 17, 21 and 30, DENG et al teaches a photovoltaic module (abstract and title, “anti PID photovoltaic module”, figures 1-4) comprising:
a glass panel (8, “glass cover-plate”),
a back panel (1, “backboard” or “back plate”, made of glass as detailed in Embodiment 3 on pages 3-4, as required in instant claim 21),
a cell string including a plurality of cells (4, silicon cell per the 5th paragraph of Embodiment one of page 3, connected via connectors 3 to show a string of photovoltaic cells in figures 1-4) encapsulated between the glass panel and the back panel (figures 1-4 show the cells to be sandwiched by the panels reading on encapsulation in a first interpretation, with encapsulant layer 2 providing encapsulation within the panels further reading on encapsulation), each respective cell of the cell string having a first side opposite a second side (wherein the first side is interpreted as the top and the second as the bottom or lower side of cells in figures 1-4),
a first film (7, “barrier film”) containing metal oxides and/or silicon oxides (6th paragraph of Embodiment one disclosing the barrier layer to include metal oxides and silicon oxides including titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, zinc oxide, stannum or tin oxide, silicon oxide and aluminum oxide, as disclosed to be materials for the first film in instant claim 30) disposed between the glass panel (8) and the cell string (3/4) (wherein the orientation of the first film between these layers is shown in figures 1-4),
DENG teaches the first film (“barrier film” of DENG) can be made of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride (reading on silicon oxide) and silicon oxide in 6th paragraph of Embodiment one and the use of a monocrystalline silicon substrate in the 5th paragraph of Embodiment one. DENG fails to teach a thickness of the first film to be 50-5000 nm, a first anti-reflective layer positioned in direct contact with the first side of each respective cell of the cell string, wherein a part of the first film is positioned in direct contact with the first anti-reflective layer for each respective cell of the cells, and a second anti-reflective layer positioned in direct contact with the second side of each respective cell of the cell string.
CHEONG et al teaches a monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic cell, as in that of DENG et al, as disclosed in the abstract, paragraph [0035] and figure 3. CHEONG et al further teaches the cell to be bifacial (abstract). CHEONG et al further teaches a passivation layer 1911 directly on the emitter (or instant cell of claim 17)(figure 3) to be make of silicon oxide in paragraph [0042], interpreted to be equivalent to the instant claim’s first anti-reflective layer (based on anti-reflective functionality present in the region (191), paragraph [0061]). Moreover, passivation layer 1912 is shown to be present directly on top of layer 1911 (instant first anti-reflective layer) and made of a metal oxide (aluminum oxide, paragraph [0044]), interpreted to be equivalent to the first layer of the instant claim (based on use of the same material, as required by and overlapping with instant claim 30). Moreover, the second side (rear side of figure 3) of the device of CHEONG et al is taught to have a passivation layer 1921 present thereon (paragraph [0074]), made of silicon oxide (paragraph [0074]), interpreted to be equivalent to the instant claim’s second anti-reflective layer (based on the use of the same materials as the first anti-reflective functionality present in the region (191), paragraph [0061]). The use of the stacks of layers on CHEONG et al on the surface of the cell maximize the amount of light incident the substrate while also improving passivation functionality (paragraphs [0060]-[0062], [0082]) generating a more effective cell with improved power generation.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the bifacial cell of CHEONG et al within the string of DENG et al (which features glass on the top and bottom of the module) so as to maximize the light impingement and power generation opportunity through the bifacial orientation. Furthermore, the use of the layers within the cell stack of CHEONG et al maximize the light impinging the cell with improved passivation, rendering the use of the cell of CHEONG et al within the double glass encapsulated cell of DENG obvious so as to maximize power generation.
Regarding the thickness of the first film, the instant specification teaches the first film to have a thickness of 2-5000nm. The range now claimed has no criticality, wherein the use of any thickness within the range disclosed in the specification will reasonably render obvious another portion of the range. In the interest of compact prosecution, modified DENG et al does not expressly teach a first film having a thickness of 50-5000 nm.
KOIKE et al teaches the use of a metal oxide layer on the glass layer to act as a barrier to sodium ions and prevent PID damages, consistent with the first film of DENG et al present on the glass panel (see abstract), as disclosed in the abstract and paragraphs [0062]-[0063]. KOIKE et al further teaches the oxide film to have a thickness of 5-200 nm to provide an effective barrier in paragraph [0062].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize a thickness of 5-200nm for the first film present on the surface of the glass of DENG et al, as described in KOIKE et al, to provide the desired barrier functionality. The thickness disclosed in KOIKE et al, of use in the device of DENG et al, would fulfill the instant claim limitation based on the overlapping values rendering obvious the claimed range. Moreover, the summation of the thickness of CHEONG et al for the first film disclosed therein (paragraph [0050], 5-30 nm) and the thickness identified in KOIKE et al further teaches the claimed range. In addition, the range identified in the claim lacks any criticality as the instant specification details the use of a range of thicknesses (2-5000nm) which can provide the functionality desired. For this reason, modified DENG et al teaches the claimed thickness.
Regarding claim 22, CHEONG et al teaches the use of a second film (1923) containing metal oxides and/or silicon oxides (aluminum oxide, paragraph [0074]) disposed between the back panel and the cell string (where CHEONG et al teaches the presence of layer 1923 on the cell (121/110/172a) itself and when used as the cells of the cell strings of DENG et al, per the combination, would reflect the second film 1923 to be between the back panel of DENG et al and the cell string).
Regarding claim 23, modified DENG et al teaches at least one of the cells has a part of the second film (1923) deposited (While the method of making the layer does not impact the structure of the layer and is not given patentable weight within an apparatus claim, in the interest of compact prosecution, paragraph [0087] teaches the deposition of layer 1923) thereon.
Regarding claim 25, DENG et al shows the structure of the second film (10) in contact with the back panel (1) in figures 3 and 4. In a first interpretation term, this reads on the term “deposited”, as this is interpreted according to a generally accepted meaning including the simple placement of the layer on a different layer, over another layer or in contact with another layer. The term “deposited” does not imply or require the process of deposition or depositional formation of the layer. In this interpretation, DENG et al fulfills the claim as written as it shows the placement of the second film in contact with the back panel in figures 3 and 4, just as in the same structure of the second layer and back panel shown by the applicant in instant figures 7, 11 and 12. Of note, the term “thereon” merely requires a positional relationship, not adjacency or direct contact. In a second interpretation, if the term “deposited thereon” is considered a method of making the second layer, the term “deposited thereon” is interpreted to read on a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product (a second layer on the back panel). The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 26, modified DENG et al teaches the first film is a single-layer (present as the metal/silicon oxide barrier layer 7 of DENG et al and/or the metal oxide layer 1912 of CHEONG et al).
Regarding claim 27, modified DENG et al teaches the second film is a single-layer present as the metal/silicon oxide barrier layer 10 of DENG et al and/or the metal oxide layer 1923 of CHEONG et al).
Regarding claim 29, modified DENG et al teaches the second film has a thickness of 2 to 2000nm (CHEONG et al teaches layer 1923, interpreted to be a part of the second film, to have a thickness of 5-20nm (paragraphs [0076] and [0078]) rendering obvious the claimed range).
Regarding claim 32, DENG et al teaches the photovoltaic module (figures 1-4) further comprises an encapsulation layer (2, “encapsulation”) for encapsulating the cell string (4) between the glass panel (8) and the back panel (1), and
wherein a surface of the first film (7) is in contact with the encapsulation layer (2) (see figures 1-4 at the sides of the cells).
Regarding claims 33 and 34, DENG et al shows the structure of the second film (10) in contact with the back panel (1) in figures 3 and 4 (same material and use as the first film described in the rejection of claim 17 but present on the rear side). The instant specification teaches the second film to have a thickness of 2-5000nm. The range now claimed has no criticality, wherein the use of any thickness within the range disclosed in the specification will reasonably render obvious another portion of the range. In the interest of compact prosecution, modified DENG et al does not expressly teach a second film having a thickness of 50-5000 nm.
KOIKE et al teaches the use of a metal oxide layer on the glass layer to act as a barrier to sodium ions and prevent PID damages, consistent with the second film (10) of DENG et al present on the glass panel (see abstract), as disclosed in the abstract and paragraphs [0062]-[0063]. KOIKE et al further teaches the oxide film to have a thickness of 5-200 nm to provide an effective barrier in paragraph [0062].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize a thickness of 5-200nm for the second film present on the surface of the glass of DENG et al, as described in KOIKE et al, to provide the desired barrier functionality. The thickness disclosed in KOIKE et al, of use in the device of DENG et al, would fulfill instant claim 33’s limitation based on the overlapping values rendering obvious the claimed range. Moreover, regarding claims 33 and 34, the summation of the thickness of CHEONG et al for the second film disclosed therein (paragraph [0076], 5-30 nm) and the thickness identified in KOIKE et al further teaches the claimed range in a sizing of 10-230nm. In addition, the range identified in the claim lacks any criticality as the instant specification details the use of a range of thicknesses (2-5000nm) which can provide the functionality desired. For this reason, modified DENG et al teaches the claimed thickness.
Regarding claim 35, the summation of the first film constituents of CHEONG et al (5-30nm, paragraph [0050]) and KOIKE et al (5-200nm, paragraph [0062]) renders obvious the first film having a thickness of 220 to 2000 nm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
To make the point further, the selection of new values within the broad range of thicknesses (2-5000nm) for the first and second layer lack criticality and would be reasonably rendered obvious by the values disclosed in the above rejections regardless of selection of new end points within the broader range.
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 36, the Applicant simply argues CHEONG et al does not disclose the second film positioned in direct contact with the second anti-reflective layer.
The Examiner disagrees. CHEONG et al clearly shows the use of stacks of a plurality of metal or silicon oxide layers in direct contact with each other, in direct contact with the front and rear sides of the solar cells, such as a rear stack of 1921 (anti-reflective layer) and 1922 (second film). The characterization of these layers as “anti-reflective”, “first” or “second” is interpreted to be interchangeable as regardless of what the layers are called, the same structure and materials are present in modified DENG et al as that of the instant application.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 3/19/2026