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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/20/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous claim objections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The art rejections are maintained.
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) 1-9, 11, 12, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20110046194A (referred to as ‘194A, machine translation relied upon herein, both previously made of record), and further in view of US 2008/0121264 to Chen (of record).
Regarding claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 22-24, ‘194A teaches a photovoltaic device comprising
A substrate 100 (Fig. 6, p. 3-8 of translation)
A photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of photovoltaic cells C1 to Cn (Fig. 1) disposed on the substrate 100
A top electrode 600 and a bottom electrode 200 incorporated into the photovoltaic module, wherein the top electrode and the bottom electrode are at least partially exposed (electrode 600 has a planar face that faces up in Fig. 6, out of page in Fig. 1; electrode 200 has an edge that is exposed in region P4 of Fig. 6)
A protective encapsulation (stack of layers 810/820/810/820/810/820) covering at least an active area of the photovoltaic module
Wherein the protective encapsulation is in contact with at least a portion of the top electrode 600 and the bottom electrode 200 (at least a portion of 810 contacts substantially all of the top electrode 600 and an edge of the electrode 200 in the region P4).
The protective encapsulation layer comprises multiple layer portions 820, which are each formed of, inter alia, TiO2 and/or Si-O2 by vacuum processing (bottom p. 7 of translation discusses materials deposited by physical vapor deposition). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the protective encapsulation layer of a portion that is vacuum-processed TiO2 and a distinct portion that is vacuum-processed Si-O2. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Per claims 1-3, one of the portions of the protective encapsulation covering the active area of the photovoltaic module is formed of vacuum-processed metal oxide SiO2. While ‘194A does not teach the evaporation temperature of SiO2, it is expected that the evaporation temperature is less than or equal to 1200 oC, as it has the same composition as claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
Per claims 1 and 4, one of the portions of the protective encapsulation covering the active area of the photovoltaic module is formed of vacuum-processed metal oxide TiO2. The limitation that the metal oxide TiO2 is solution-processed is a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP §2113.I.
The protective encapsulation layer is thicker than the photovoltaic module, the top electrode 600, and the bottom electrode 200 (in region P4 of Fig. 6, the sum of layers 810, 820 is necessarily thicker than these layers). The reference teaches that the total thickness of one pair of portions 810, 820 of the protective encapsulation layer is between 3 and 10 mm (top p. 4, top p. 8 of translation). ‘194A does not teach a thickness of the substrate 100 (see bottom of p. 4 of translation through top p. 5).
Chen teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the thickness of a substrate for such a module to be between 1 and 4 mm (¶0027). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Therefore, as the thickness of the protective encapsulation layer of modified-‘194A is necessarily greater than 3 mm, and the thickness of the substrate is not greater than 4 mm, an embodiment in which the protective encapsulation layer is thick or thicker than the substrate is an obvious result.
Per claim 5, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 1. A junction is disposed (top p. 6 of translation).
Per claim 6, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 1. The plurality of photovoltaic cells comprise one or more of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) cells (middle p. 3, 5 of translation).
Per claims 7 and 8, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 1. The reference teaches that the device can comprise CIGS, Si, or dye-sensitized cells (middle p. 3, 5 of translation). Chen teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the plurality of cells of the device as organic photovoltaic cells comprising one or more organic molecules or polymers (¶0033), because they are suitable alternative to CIGS cells. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As such, the device of modified-‘194’A would be an organic photovoltaic device.
Per claims 9 and 11, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 1. The reference ‘194A teaches that the substrate 100 can be formed as flexible with a low stiffness or rigid (middle p. 3, bottom of p. 4, top p. 5 of translation). While the reference does not specifically teach that the photovoltaic device itself is flexible with a low stiffness or rigid, a skilled artisan would understand that a rigid substrate would infer rigidity to the photovoltaic device and that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a photovoltaic device with a flexible substrate to also be flexible to take advantages of such flexibility.
Per claims 12, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 1. The substrate 100 comprises glass (bottom p. 4 of translation of ‘194A).
Per claims 22-24, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 1. The limitations that the protective encapsulation is disposed onto one or more of the substate, the photovoltaic module, the top electrode, and the bottom electrode in a vacuum, in environments with pressure ranging from low vacuum to atmospheric, or ex-situ, after fabrication of the photovoltaic device is complete, are product-by-process limitations, which are given weight according to the reasoning above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘194A and Chen as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of JP5429949B2 to Murata (machine translation relied upon herein, both of record).
Regarding claim 10, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 9. Certain elements of the device can be formed from glass (bottom p. 4 of translation), but the reference does not teach that the device comprises materials with a Glass Young’s modulus less than 50 GPa. Murata teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a similar element such as taught by modified-‘194A with a Glass Young’s modulus of 25 GPa so that the deflection of the device under its own weight is reduced (bottom of p. 6 of translation).
Claim(s) 13-20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘194A and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2007/0295385 to Sheats (of record).
Regarding claims 13-20, modified-194A teaches the limitations of claim 1. ‘194A does not teach that the photovoltaic device further comprises an encapsulation covering the entire photovoltaic device. Sheats teaches that increased protection from scratches and environment can be provided by covering the entirety of a similar photovoltaic device (10/20 in Figs. 1) with an encapsulation (40/30/32/50; ¶0055-0060). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to cover the entire photovoltaic device with an encapsulation to protect the device from scratches.
Per claims 14-16, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 1. The encapsulation taught by Sheats comprises a lamination and/or a potting coating, the lamination comprising one or more of plastics or elastomers (¶0055). The limitation that the lamination is achieved by one or more of thermal lamination, etc. is a product-by-process limitation, and is provided weight as reasoned above.
Per claims 17, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 14. The encapsulation taught by Sheats comprises a potting coating (30, ¶0055), further comprising a urethane, polymers, or resins.
Per claims 18, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 14. The encapsulation taught by Sheats comprises a conformal coating (30, ¶0055), further comprising a urethane, polymers, or resins.
Per claims 19 and 20, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 13. The encapsulation taught by Sheats comprises flexible barrier materials (40) comprising polymers (¶0056, 0125, 0129), which are attached to the photovoltaic device through resins (¶0055).
Regarding claim 25, modified-‘194A teaches the limitations of claim 1. While ‘194A does not specifically teach that the photovoltaic device is integrated into an electronic device, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to integrate the photovoltaic device into an electronic device because it is a known combination including photovoltaic devices (¶0003 of Sheats).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant insists that the art rejections are improper because the references do not teach a solution-processed metal oxide as claimed. While the examiner agrees, the limitation that the metal oxide must be solution-processed is a product-by-process limitation. 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). The examiner could not identify evidence from the disclosure as originally filed that solution-processing of the metal oxide confers a particular structural difference that would give “solution-processed” patentable weight. Applicant has also not provided other forms of evidence that solution-processed metal oxide has a confirmed structural difference from a vacuum-processed material.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726