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 amendments filed on 12/10/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN212323009, Machine translation) in view of Liu (US Pub No. 2012/0247532)
Regarding Claim 1, Wang et al. teaches a photovoltaic module with pattern [Fig. 2-3], comprising a photovoltaic cell layer [Cell, Fig. 7, bottom of page 11/15] and a transparent encapsulation structure [210, 212, 240 and 222, Fig. 2, Fig. 7, middle of page 7/15, top of page 15/15, bottom of page 11/15, a portion of the encapsulation structure is transparent, meeting the limitation of transparent] encapsulating the photovoltaic cell layer [Cell, Fig. 7, bottom of page 11/15], wherein a patterned gap space [see inside 212, Fig. 2-3, bottom of page 10/15] is provided inside the transparent encapsulation structure for forming a low refractive index region, and refractive index difference between the patterned gap space and a physical medium inside the photovoltaic module enables a pattern to be formed on a surface of the photovoltaic module [Fig. 2-3, bottom of page 10/15].
Wang et al. teaches wherein the transparent encapsulation structure comprises at least one patterned transparent film layer [211, 210, and 212, Fig. 3, middle of page 10/15, and bottom of page 8/15], wherein the patterned transparent film layer has patterned through holes, grooves or bubbles for forming the patterned gap space [Fig. 3-4].
Wang et al. is silent on a side of the patterned gap space has an optical microstructure, for enhancing a pattern effect of the surface of the photovoltaic module.
Liu et al. teaches a transparent substrate 220a with an optical microstructure 210a [Fig. 1, 0020] used to improve the conversion efficiency of the solar panels [0005-0008].
Since Wang et al. teaches the use of a patterned gap space a part of a substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to provide the microstructure 210a of Liu et al. on sides of the patterned gap space of Wang et al. in order to provide improved conversion efficiency for the solar panels [0005-0008].
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, Wang et al. teaches wherein the patterned transparent film layer [211, 210, and 212, Fig. 3, middle of page 10/15, and bottom of page 8/15] is a patterned adhesive thin film layer the patterned adhesive thin film layer has patterned through holes, grooves or bubbles, for forming the patterned gap space, and physical medium layers at two sides of the patterned adhesive thin film layer are non-flowing or low-flowing medium layers at a lamination temperature [top of page 7/15, and bottom of page 10/15].
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, Wang et al. teaches wherein a physical medium layer [211, Fig. 3, top of page 11/15] at a side where a light incident surface of the patterned adhesive thin film layer [layer 212, Fig. 3-4, 6, bottom of page 10/15] is located as a non-flowing medium layer, an optical microstructure is provided on a side of the non-flowing medium layer facing the patterned adhesive thin film layer, the optical microstructure is distributed on a whole surface or a partial surface of the non- flowing medium layer, and the partial surface is a surface region corresponding to the patterned gap space [top of page 7/15, bottom of page 10/15].
Regarding Claim 7 and 16, within the combination above, Wang et al. teaches wherein the patterned adhesive thin film layer [layer 212, Fig. 3-4, 6, bottom of page 10/15] has one side provided with the photovoltaic cell layer [Cell, Fig. 7, bottom of page 11/15], and the other side provided with a transparent film layer [210, Fig. 3, top of page 11/15].
Regarding Claim 8 and 17, within the combination above, Wang et al. teaches a specific structure comprises, from top to bottom, a front cover plate [the combination of 210 and 211, Fig. 3, top of page 11/15], the patterned adhesive thin film layer [layer 212, Fig. 3-4, 6, bottom of page 10/15], the photovoltaic cell layer [Cell, Fig. 7, bottom of page 11/15], an encapsulation adhesive layer [240, Fig. 3, top of 15/15], and a rear cover plate [221, Fig. 3, bottom of page 14/15].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, Wang et al. teaches
wherein the patterned transparent film layer [211, 210, and 212, Fig. 3, middle of page 10/15, and bottom of page 8/15] is a patterned adhesive thin film layer [layer 212, Fig. 3-4, 6, bottom of page 10/15] and the patterned adhesive thin film layer has a patterned non-adhesive surface for forming the patterned gap space, and a physical medium layer [211, Fig. 3, top of page 11/15] at a side of the patterned adhesive thin film layer having the patterned non-adhesive surface is a non-adhesive medium layer at a lamination temperature [top of page 7/15]
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, Wang et al. teaches
wherein the patterned transparent film layer is a transparent film layer [211, 210, and 212, Fig. 3, middle of page 10/15], the transparent film layer has the patterned grooves for forming the patterned gap space [see rejection of claim 1], and a physical medium layer [211, Fig. 3, top of page 11/15] at a side where the grooves of the transparent film layer are located is a low-flowing adhesive medium layer [Fig. 2-3, top of page 7/15].
Regarding Claim 11 and 18, within the combination above, Wang et al. teaches wherein the optical microstructure comprises slots [Fig. 5-6, middle of page 10/15].
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, Wang et al. teaches
wherein a pattern of the patterned gap space is a sketch pattern [Fig. 5-6, middle of page 10/15]
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN212323009, Machine translation) in view of Yoon (US Pub No. 2015/0373844)
Regarding Claim 6 and 15, within the combination above, Wang et al. is silent on wherein the patterned adhesive thin film layer has a thickness of 5-200 pm.
Yoon et al. teaches a patterning layer with a thickness of 0.01 um to 10 um nm as a common thickness for a patterning layer for a solar cell [0083, 0128]. The thickness of Yoon et al. overlaps the claimed 5-200 nm.
Since Wang et al. teaches the use of a patterning layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention before the filing of the invention modify the thickness of the patterning layer of Wang et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for patterning layers on solar cells in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
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.).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the arguments about “1) the patterned transparent film layer has patterned through holes, grooves, or bubbles for forming the pattern gap space: and 2) a side of the patterned gap space have an optical microstructure, for enhancing a pattern effect of the surface of the photovoltaic module.”
Wang et al. teaches wherein the transparent encapsulation structure comprises at least one patterned transparent film layer [211, 210, and 212, Fig. 3, middle of page 10/15, and bottom of page 8/15], wherein the patterned transparent film layer has patterned through holes, grooves or bubbles for forming the patterned gap space [Fig. 3-4] meeting the limitations of feature 1. Examiner is reading 211, 210 and 212 as the patterned transparent film layer, which comprises the patterned gap space. At least a portion of the transparent film layer is transparent; therefore, meeting the limitations of the claim.
Liu et al. teaches a transparent substrate 220a with an optical microstructure 210a [Fig. 1, 0020] used to improve the conversion efficiency of the solar panels [0005-0008].
Since Wang et al. teaches the use of a patterned gap space a part of a substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to provide the microstructure 210a of Liu et al. on sides of the patterned gap space of Wang et al. in order to provide improved conversion efficiency for the solar panels [0005-0008].
The combination results in optical microstructures added to the patterned gap space meeting the limitations of feature 2. The patterned transparent film layer [211, 210, and 212] is modified with the optical microstructure as taught by Liu et al. The limitation cited to a side of the pattered gap space, which implies the side areas of the patterned gap space would be at least the side of 210 or 212 directly contacting the sides of the patterned gap space in figure 3. The combination result in the teaching of all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of modified Liu et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the device of modified Liu et al. meeting the limitation of “for enhancing a pattern effect of the surface of the photovoltaic module”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728