DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 18, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 17 and 36 have been amended.
Claims 1-16, 18-20, 24, 28, and 31 have been cancelled.
Claims 17, 21-23, 25-27, 29, 30, 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, 25-27, 29, 30, 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENG et al, in view of KOIKE et al (US PG PUB 2018/0013024) and SCHWABEDISSEN et al (WO2019/192656A1).
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 a part of the first film is positioned in direct contact with a surface of the glass panel (figures 1-4),
DENG et al fails to teach the first film has a thickness of 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, the first anti-reflective layer containing a silicon nitride, and a second anti-reflective layer positioned in direct contact with the second side of each respective cell of the cell string, the second anti-reflective layer containing a silicon nitride.
KOIKE et al teaches a photovoltaic device comprising 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 also teaches the use of an anti-reflective layer on the surface of the solar cell (figures 1 and 2) to be made of silicon nitride (paragraph [0053]). KOIKE et al teaches oxide film for PID damage prevention can be present in direct contact with the surface of the anti-reflective layer (figure 1) or on the interior surface of the glass (figure 2, DENG et al) to shield the interior layers (paragraph [0055]). KOIKE et al further teaches the metal/silicon 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 an anti-reflective layer on the surface of the photovoltaic module of DENG et al, as taught in KOIKE et al, to fulfill the well-established need of decreased reflection on the incident light surface. It would have also been obvious to utilize a barrier layer (oxide layer of KOIKE et al, first layer of the instant claim) in contact with the anti-reflective layer in the device of DENG et al (in addition to the first layer of DENG et al) so as to maximize protection and shielding on the cells from diffusion of sodium ions and the associated PID. Moreover, 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.
The combination of DENG et al and KOIKE et al fails to teach a second anti-reflective layer positioned in direct contact with the second side of each respective cell of the cell string, the second anti-reflective layer containing a silicon nitride.
SCHWABEDISSEN et al teaches a solar cell comprising an anti-reflective coating between glass cover sheets (paragraphs [0049]) with a focus to decrease the impact of PID (paragraph [0022]), just as in modified DENG et al. SCHWABEDISSEN et al teaches the use of bifacial solar cells, as opposed to monofacial cells as in DENG et al and KOIKE et al, so as to increase light incidence and efficiency. The use of the bifacial cell necessitates the anti-reflective layer on the rear side of the cell to increase optical properties (paragraph [0043]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the bifacial cell of SCHWABEDISSEN 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. In utilizing the bifacial cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the silicon nitride, anti-reflective layer of KOIKE et al on the rear surface of the solar cell of modified DENG et al, so as to increase optical properties.
Regarding claims 22 and 25, DENG et al teaches the photovoltaic module further comprises a second film (10) containing metal oxides and/or silicon oxides (barrier film can be the same as barrier film 7, Embodiment 3, see claim 17’s rejection for the full list of items) disposed between the back panel and the cell string (figures 3 or 4), and in contact with the back panel.
Claim 25 details the second film being “deposited” on the back panel. 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 23, while DENG et al teaches the use of a barrier film on the rear side of the device, DENG et al is silent to at least one of the cells has a part of the second film deposited thereon. KOIKE et al teaches oxide film for PID damage prevention can be present in direct contact with the surface of the anti-reflective layer (figure 1) or on the interior surface of the glass (figure 2, DENG et al) to shield the interior layers (paragraph [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art place a barrier layer on the rear side cells so as to maximize PID damage on the surface of the cells.
Claims 23 details the second film being “deposited” on the cells. 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, modified DENG et al fulfills the claim as written as it places the second film in contact with the cells. 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 cells). 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.
Regarding claim 35, KOIKE et al further teaches the metal/silicon oxide film to have a thickness of 5-200 nm to provide an effective barrier in paragraph [0062]. The use of a pair of first film barrier layers (one present on the antireflection layer and one of the glass panel) would render a range of 100-400nm, overlapping the claimed range of 220 to 5000nm. Moreover, 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, also fulfilling the claim as written.
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) disposed between the glass panel (8) and the cell string (3/4), wherein a part of the first film is positioned in direct contact with a surface of the glass panel (figures 1-4),
a second film (10, “barrier film”, embodiment 3) containing metal oxides and/or silicon oxides (6th paragraph of Embodiment one, taught to be the same as the materials of use for barrier layer 7 in Embodiment 3) 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 et al is silent to a first anti-reflective layer positioned in direct contact with the first side of each respective cell of the cell string, the first anti-reflective layer containing a silicon nitride, 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, a second anti-reflective layer positioned in direct contact with the second side of each respective cell of the cell string, and the second anti-reflective layer containing a silicon nitride, 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.
KOIKE et al teaches a photovoltaic device comprising 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 also teaches the use of an anti-reflective layer on the surface of the solar cell (figures 1 and 2) to be made of silicon nitride (paragraph [0053]). KOIKE et al teaches oxide film for PID damage prevention can be present in direct contact with the surface of the anti-reflective layer (figure 1) or on the interior surface of the glass (figure 2, DENG et al) to shield the interior layers (paragraph [0055]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize an anti-reflective layer on the surface of the photovoltaic module of DENG et al, as taught in KOIKE et al, to fulfill the well-established need of decreased reflection on the incident light surface. It would have also been obvious to utilize a barrier layer (oxide layer of KOIKE et al, first layer of the instant claim) in contact with the anti-reflective layer in the device of DENG et al (in addition to the first layer of DENG et al) so as to maximize protection and shielding on the cells from diffusion of sodium ions and the associated PID.
The combination of DENG et al and KOIKE et al fails to teach a second anti-reflective layer positioned in direct contact with the second side of each respective cell of the cell string, and the second anti-reflective layer containing a silicon nitride, 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.
SCHWABEDISSEN et al teaches a solar cell comprising an anti-reflective coating between glass cover sheets (paragraphs [0049]) with a focus to decrease the impact of PID (paragraph [0022]), just as in modified DENG et al. SCHWABEDISSEN et al teaches the use of bifacial solar cells, as opposed to monofacial cells as in DENG et al and KOIKE et al, so as to increase light incidence and efficiency. The use of the bifacial cell necessitates the anti-reflective layer on the rear side of the cell to increase optical properties (paragraph [0043]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the bifacial cell of SCHWABEDISSEN 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. In utilizing the bifacial cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the silicon nitride, anti-reflective layer of KOIKE et al on the rear surface of the solar cell of modified DENG et al, so as to increase optical properties. Moreover, since KOIKE et al teaches an oxide, barrier film for PID damage prevention can be present in direct contact with the surface of the anti-reflective layer (figure 1) to shield the interior layers (paragraph [0055]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art place a barrier layer of DENG et al on the anti-reflective layer (taught by SCHWABEDISSEN et al) of the rear side cells so as to maximize PID damage protection on the surface of the cells.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 and 36 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.
Specifically, the Applicant’s arguments are directed to the amended claim language requiring the anti-reflective layers to be made of silicon nitride. This limitation is addressed by KOIKE et al herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RATTUNDE (US PG PUB 2013/0167921) teaches a stack of silicon nitride/metal oxide which also reads on the anti-reflective layer/first layer stack of claim 17.
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 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights