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 on 9/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11 are amended. Claims 15-16 are newly added. Currently, claims 1-16 are pending in the instant application with claims 13-14 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 1-12 and 15-16 are rejected on a new ground of rejection below.
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 1-12 and 15-16 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.
The term “close” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-12 and 15-16 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and recites “photovoltaic devices comprising one or more mono- or polycrystalline semiconductor cells having a light sensitive side and a side opposite to the light sensitive side showing at least one anode and one cathode, and a back contact foil, the one or more mono- or polycrystalline semiconductor cells arranged between the glass plate and the back contact foil, the back contact foil arranged between the one or more mono- or polycrystalline semiconductor cells and the hybrid composite laminate, the glass, the cells, the back contact foil and the composite laminate attached to each other by an encapsulant” (emphasis added) in lines 2-9. It is unclear what “the light sensitive side showing at least one anode and one cathode” is being referred to. It is also unclear what arrangement is being claimed. Revision is required since the claims contains incorrect grammar and punctuation.
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, 6-7, 10-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2014/0352764) in view of Francis et al. (US 2018/0154606, Cite No. 2 of U.S. Patent Application Publication in IDS 1/16/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a solar panel comprising:
a glass plate (see upper surface 300, figs. 2-3, [0044-0045]),
photovoltaic devices (see solar panel 200, figs. 2-3, which has a plurality of cells as shown in fig. 1 and described in [0028]),
a bonding layer (220, figs. 2-3, [0048]).
Kim et al. teaches using a bonding layer (220) and the solar panel (without the laminate) is disposed on an upper surface of a vehicle body (see [0008]). In other word, Kim et al. teaches the solar cell panel to be body panel or structural components for vehicles.
Kim et al. does not explicitly teach the laminate is a hybrid composite laminate comprising a central layer, an upper layer and a lower layer as claimed.
Francis et al. discloses a laminate (or composite panel for vehicle body ([0001] and [0024-0025], figs. 2-5, also see figs. 7 and 8) comprising a central layer (see central portion 8, figs. 2 and 4) comprising plies (20) of carbon fibers (see fig. 4, [0039-0044]), an upper layer (see front layer 6, figs. 2-3 and 7-8) comprising one or more plies (or layers) of glass fiber ([0036], [0059-0060) and in contact with the upper side of the central layer (8, see figs. 2 and 7-8), and a lower layer (see rear reinforcement layer 10, figs. 2, 5 and 7-8) comprising one or more plies of glass fiber (36, figs. 2, 5 and 7-8, [0052]) and in contact with the lower side of the central layer (8, see figs. 2 and 7-8)), wherein the upper layer (6) and the lower layer (10) comprising plies of glass fibers embedded in a cured polymer (12/38, see figs. 3 and 5, [0037] and [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar panel of Kim et al. by incorporating the laminate (or composite panel) of Francis et al.; because Kim et al. suggests disposing the solar panel on an upper surface of a vehicle body, and Francis et al. teaches such laminate (or composite panel) would be manufactured at a lower cost and would have a combination of low weight, high stiffness, high impact resistance, low resistance to warping and a high quality surface finish ([0004-0005]).
Francis et al. teaches balancing coefficient of thermal expansion to prevent warping or distortion (see [0017-0018]).
Modified Kim et al. does not teach the coefficient of thermal expansion of the laminate is close to or equal to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass plate. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the laminate having the coefficient of thermal expansion of the laminate to be close to or equal to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the glass plate (or a layer of the solar panel of modified Kim et al.) to prevent warping or distortion of the solar panel, because Francis et al. teaches balancing coefficient of thermal expansion would prevent warping or distortion.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Francis et al. teaches the laminate is a balanced and symmetric laminate (see figs. 2 and 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Francis et al. teaches using unidirectional fibers (see [0049] and [0068-0069], [0071).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Francis teaches using woven fibers (see [0012], [0016-0017], [0019-0020], [0022-0023], [0048-0049], [0057], [0068-0069], [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim et al. et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Francis et al. discloses using E-glass fibres (see [0052], [0060]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel of claim 1, wherein Kim et al. discloses the solar panel to be a double-curved solar panel (see figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Francis et al. teaches using non-random direction (see linear direction, unidirectional woven, twill, weave fibers described in [0012], [0016-0017], [0019-0020], [0022-0023], [0048-0049], [0057], [0068-0069], [0071]).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Francis et al. teaches using entirely non-random direction fibers (see [0047-0048]) and shows at half of the fibers, or fibers 48, extending in the same non-random direction in fig. 6. In other words, Francis et al. teaches at 100% of glass fibers, 48, extending in the same non-random direction and shows at least 50% of glass fibers, 48, extending in the same non-random direction. At least 50% and 100% are right within the claimed range of at least 50% in claim 11, and 100% is right within the claimed range of at least 75% in claim 16
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Francis et al. teaches the central layer (8) comprises a first central layer ply of carbon fibres (26, fig. 8) comprising continuous carbon fibers ([0068]), or the carbon fibers extend in a first direction. Francis et al. also teaches the upper layer (6) comprising woven glass fibers (see [0057] and [0059-0061]) and the lower layer (10) comprising woven glass fibers (see fig. 6 and [0046-0049]), and the upper layer (or the front layer 6) and the lower layer (or the rear reinforcement layer 10) have the same composition (see [0061]). Francis et al. shows the lower layer (or the rear reinforcement layer 10) having first and second layers (see fig. 5, also see [0049]) and the fibrious layer (36) comprising a first continuous fibers (48) extending in a direction and a second continuous fibers (54) extending in an orthogonal direction to the direction of the first continuous fibers (see fig. 6). As such, Francis et al. teaches the upper layer comprises a first upper layer ply of glass fibres extend in a second direction, and a second upper layer ply of glass fibres extend in a fourth direction; and the lower layer comprises a first lower layer ply of glass fibres extend in a third direction, and a second lower layer ply of glass fibres, extend in a fifth direction; ,wherein the second direction is the same as third direction and the fourth direction is the same as the fifth direction since the upper and lower layers have the same composition.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kim et al. (US 2014/0352764) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kajisa (US 2015/0144194).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Francis the cured polymer (12/38) is a cured resin of epoxy (see [0037] and [0046]).
Modified Kim et al. does not teach using a low coefficient of thermal expansion epoxy with a coefficient of thermal expansion of less than 50 ppm/K at room temperature.
Kajisa discloses using epoxy ([0101]) to obtain a protective member having a linear expansion coefficient of 40ppm/oC or less and 1ppm/oC or more at room temperature (or 20-25oC, see [0098]). 40 ppm/oC is 0.146ppm/K (or 40ppm/273.15K) and 1ppm/oC is 0.003661 ppm/K (or 1ppm/273.15K), 0.003661-0.146ppm/K is right within the claim ranged of less than 50 ppm/K.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laminate of modified Kim by using low coefficient of thermal expansion epoxy with a coefficient of 0.003661-0.146ppm/K as taught by Kajisa, because Kajisa teaches such usage is preferred for the easy availability of the raw material (see [0098] of Kajisa). Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ueda et al. (WO 2019/031378, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leung et al. (US 2015/0287852).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Kim et al. teaches using dye solar cells.
Modified Kim et al. does not teach the photovoltaic devices are photovoltaic devices from the group of multi-junction solar cells, monocrystalline silicon solar cells, poly-crystalline silicon solar cells, GaAs solar cells, perovskite solar films, or thin film solar films.
Leung et al. teaches perovskite solar films (or cells) are dye solar cells (see [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar panel of modified Kim et al. by using perovskite solar films as taught by Leung et al., because Leung et al. teaches perovskite solar cells (or films) are dye solar cells. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ueda et al. (WO 2019/031378, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leung et al. (US 2015/0287852) and Park et al. (US 2018/0330889).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim et al. discloses a solar panel as in claim 1 above, wherein Kim et al. discloses and teaches the photovoltaic devices are dye solar cells having the active layer (13 and 17) arranged between electrodes (anode and cathode, 12 and 22/23, see fig. 1), wherein the active layer is arranged between the glass plate (or the upper surface 300) and the back side of the solar panel (200) which includes the back electrode such as 22/23 (see figs. 2-3 and also see fig. 1). Since the solar cell panel (300/210/200/220) of Kim et al. is disposed on top of the hybrid laminate (vehicle body) of Francis et al., the back side including the back electrode disclosed by Kim et al. is arranged between the active layer (e.g. above the back electrode) and the hybrid composite laminate (e.g. below the back side). Kim et al. also teaches the glass plate (300), the solar panel (200) including the active layer (13/17) and the back electrode (22/23) attached to each other by an encapsulant such as sticking member 210 and bonding layer 220 (see figs. 2-3).
Modified Kim et al. does not teach the glass plate is a soda-lime glass plate with a thickness of between 1.5 mm and 3.0 mm.
Berman discloses using a glass plate (or glass substrate 10 in figure) of conventional soda lime glass about 2 millimeters thick (see col. 2, lines 48-51). Two millimeters is right within the claimed range of between 1.5mm and 3.0mm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar panel of modified Kim et al. by using soda lime glass having a thickness of two millimeters as taught by Berman, because Berman teaches such glass plate (or glass substrate) is conventionally known in the art.
Modified Kim et al. does not teach the active layer to be mono- or polycrystalline semiconductor, nor do they teach using a back-contact foil as the back electrode.
Park et al. teaches monocrystalline semiconductor (or single crystal-based) solar cell having higher efficiency than dye solar cell (see [0005-0016]), and using back-contact foil (or metallic second electrode 11, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used monocrystalline semiconductor cells and the back-contact foil for the bottom electrode, because Park et al. teaches monocrystalline semiconductor cells would provide higher efficiency and because using back-contact foil for the back electrode would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 15-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Zhang does not teach the claimed invention. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
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 THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726