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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 01/21/2026.
Claim(s) 1-22 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 15-20 have been withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 21 and 22 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 01/01/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-14 and 21-22 based upon Iwamoto et al., Giron et al., De Vries and Moslehi as set forth in the last Office action because: the declaration cannot supply missing written description information. An affidavit/declaration cannot be used to add new matter or supply missing written-description support. In the present case, the declaration introduces specific values (e.g., length (l) and height (h) parameters) used in a radius of curvature equation that are not disclosed or characterized in the original specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 21 and 22
Unsupported Radius of Curvature Range
The amended claims recite the following newly added limitations:
to form a radius of curvature Rc about two orthogonal axes ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 3.4 meters,
to form a first radius of curvature Rcx ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 3.5, and to form a second radius of curvature Rcy ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 3.4 meters, and
to form a first radius of curvature Rcx ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 0.5 meters, and to form a second radius of curvature RCY ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 0.5 meters.
While the instant specification discloses an equation for calculating the minimum panel radius of curvature Rp_min, namely
R
p
_
m
i
n
=
t
2
+
(
w
/
2
)
2
8
(
d
-
t
)
,
the specification does not disclose or characterize the length (l) or height (h) values used to calculate the claimed radius of curvature range. The originally filed specification provides disclosure for a minimum radius of curvature of less than 3.76 meters and for certain parameters (e.g., diagonal axis, cell thickness, encapsulant thickness), but is silent to the values or ranges for l and h, which directly determine the radius of curvature range. Furthermore, the specification is silent to the maximum radius of curvature, the parameters required, and to the equation used for such calculations.
The reliance on numerical values for l and h first introduced in the affidavit constitutes impermissible supplementation of the original disclosure. An affidavit may not be used to add missing written-description support or to establish possession of a specific numerical range not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of a radius of curvature range as described in claims 1, 21 and 22 at the time of filing.
The limitation will be interpreted in light of the specification as being supported, at most, by a solar cell having a curvature about two orthogonal axes. The specification does not disclose or suggest possession of the broader radius range recited in the claims.
Unsupported Bending Mechanism
The amended claims recite the limitation “is configured to bend only by forces imparted by said substrate and said superstrate.” The originally filed specification does not describe or suggest that the bending of the solar cells occurs exclusively due to forces imparted by said substrate and said superstrate, nor does it disclose the exclusion of other bending mechanisms, such as external forming forces, tooling, pre-curving, molds, frames, or other processes. The use of the term “only” introduces an exclusive functional limitation that is not supported by the original disclosure.
While the specification may generally describe curved photovoltaic cells, such disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of a configuration in which bending occurs solely due to substrate and superstrate forces, to the exclusion of all other forces. Arguments or affidavit statements attempting to characterize the bending mechanism cannot supply this missing disclosure and do not cure the written-description deficiency.
Regarding claims 2-14
Claims 2-14 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1, thereby necessarily including the unsupported limitations.
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 1-14 and 21-22 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.
Regarding claims 1, 21 and 22
The following limitations are not consistent with the instant specification.
configured to bend only by forces imparted by said substrate and said superstrate to form a radius of curvature Rc about two orthogonal axes ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 3.4 meters,
configured to bend only by forces imparted by said substrate and said superstrate to form a first radius of curvature Rcx ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 3.5, and to form a second radius of curvature Rcy ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 3.4 meters, and
configured to bend only by forces imparted by said substrate and said superstrate to form a first radius of curvature Rcx ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 0.5 meters, and to form a second radius of curvature RCY ranging from a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 0.5 meters.
One of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claimed invention. It has been held that [a] claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). [MPEP 2173.03].
For purposes of examination on the merits, the limitation will be interpreted in light of the specification as being supported, at most, by a solar cell having a curvature about two orthogonal axes.
Regarding claims 2-14
Claims 2-14 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016-178120A, Iwamoto et al. in view of US 2015/0136207, Giron et al. and
Regarding claim 1
Iwamoto teaches a solar panel (10) [Figs. 1A-1B, para. 0024] comprising:
a substrate (back sheet 50) and a superstrate (cover glass 40) each including one or more preformed layers [Figs. 1A-1B, and para. 0024], said substrate (50) and superstrate (40) being pre-formed in a complementary shape when said solar panel is in an assembled configuration [paras. 0033 and 0035]; and
a core (see resin layer 30 comprising solar cell strings 20) disposed therebetween, said core comprising a solar cell array (see three strings 20) including at least one solar cell (21) [paras. 0024-0025], said solar cell array being encapsulated by one or more encapsulant layers (corresponding to resin layer 30 which seals/encapsulates the solar cell strings 20) [Figs. 1A-1B, para. 0032], said at least one solar cell (21) being of the semi-flexible, interdigitated, back-contact cell type and including a crystalline silicon wafer (the solar cell 21 is a back electrode type crystalline silicon solar cell comprising a p-electrode 21p and an n-electrode 21n) [Figs. 2A-2B and para. 0026], the crystalline silicon wafer selected from the group consisting of: a polycrystalline silicon wafer and a monocrystalline silicon wafer (the solar cell 21 may be made of crystalline silicon materials such as single crystal silicon and polycrystalline silicon) [para. 0054];
wherein in said assembled configuration, said core is integrally formed with said substrate (50) and said superstrate (40) such that said at least one solar cell (21) of said solar cell array is curved along two orthogonal axes (“[i]n reality, the bending rigidity of the reinforcing portion 23 is finite, so the reinforcing portion 23 and the solar cell 21 are not completely free from bending in the longitudinal direction of the reinforcing portion 23”) [paras. 0048-0050].
PNG
media_image1.png
498
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Regarding the radius of curvature, Iwamoto discloses the solar cells (21) bending about the X and Y directions (See para. [0049], wherein the rigidity of the cells is finite, and in practice, they are not completely free from also bending in the Y direction).
In the alternative, Khouri teaches a curved photovoltaic module comprising flexible or curved solar cells [para 0030], wherein the solar cells have a curvature complying with the curvature of the module [para. 0030], said solar cells having a radius of curvature in a range of 2.2 meters to 7 meters [para. 0046 and claim 23].
Said radius of curvature providing a surface that providing structural strength to the module without increasing its weight thereby facilitates shedding of precipitation and enhancing the efficiency of the curved photovoltaic module [paras. 0028 and 0046].
Iwamoto and Khouri are analogous inventions in the filed of curved photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least one solar cell of Iwamoto to have a radius of curvature in a range of 2.2 meters to 7 meters, as in Khouri, as such provides a module having structural strength to the module without increasing its weight thereby facilitates shedding of precipitation and enhancing the efficiency of the curved photovoltaic module.
Examiner notes that one would look into the benefits of precipitation shedding disclosed in Khouri for the curved solar panel of Iwamoto, as Iwamoto discloses installing the solar panel on the surface of a vehicle [para. 0075].
Modified Iwamoto is silent to the silicon wafer having a thickness of less than 0.4 mm (instant claim 1), less than 0.4 mm and greater than about 0.12 mm (instant claim 21), and ranging from about 0.12 mm to about 0.18 mm (instant claim 22).
Giron, similar to Iwamoto, teaches a curved solar cell module comprising a core layer including a solar cell array of monocrystalline of polycrystalline silicon solar cells (6) having a thickness of 10 µm to 500 µm (0.02 mm to 0.5 mm) [Fig. 1, paras. 0021, 0030 and 0059-0062].
Modified Iwamoto and Giron are analogous inventions in the field of curved solar panels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solar cells within the array of modified Iwamoto to have a thickness of between 10 µm to 500 µm (0.02 mm to 0.5 mm), as in Giron, because such provides suitable bendability/flexibility of the solar cells used in curved solar panels [Giron, paras. 0021 and 0030].
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].
With regards to the limitation “semi-flexible”, because the crystalline silicon wafer of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
It is noted that modified Iwamoto teaches that the solar cells 21 are flexible (bent) in a two-dimensional state.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, the court has held that products of identical chemical composition cannot 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)
Regarding claim 2
The limitation “wherein said one or more preformed layers of said substrate and said superstrate comprise preformed and thermally or chemically strengthened glass” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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].
It is noted that modified Iwamoto teaches thermally preforming the substrate and the superstrate [Iwamoto, para. 0033 and 0035].
Regarding claim 3
The limitation “wherein said one or more preformed layers of said substrate and said superstrate comprise preformed layers that have been laminated and thermoformed” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
The limitation does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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]
Regarding claim 4
Modified Iwamoto teaches the solar panel as set forth above, wherein said assembled configuration comprises said substrate (40), said core (30), and said superstrate (40) [Figs. 1A-1B, para. 0024].
The limitation “that have undergone a lamination process” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
The limitation does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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].
Examiner notes that modified Iwamoto teaches a lamination process [Iwamoto, paras. 0037-0039]
Regarding claim 5
The limitation “wherein said lamination process applies substantially uniform pressure across the at least one solar cell of the solar cell array curved along two orthogonal axes” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
The limitation does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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]
Regarding claim 6
The limitation “wherein said substantially uniform pressure comprises applying pressure so that said substrate initially moves said at least one cell at a downward-facing side center, and said superstrate simultaneously moves said at least one cell at upward- facing side corners, thereby bending said at least one cell by applying said substantially uniform pressure across said radius of curvature without cracks to said at least one solar cell” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
The limitation does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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]
Claim(s) 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016-178120A, Iwamoto et al. in view of US 2015/0136207, Giron et al. as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of US 2013/0122719, De Vries.
Regarding claims 7-9
All the limitations of claim 1 have been set forth above.
Modified Iwamoto does not teach either or both of said substrate and said superstrate comprising an outer protective layer, an inner rigid layer and one adhesive layer disposed therebetween.
De Vries teaches a flexible thin material (12) for use as a substrate or superstrate for PV cells or PV panels [Fig. 3a and paragraph 0007], the flexible thin material (12) comprising an outer protective layer (9), an inner rigid layer (6) and one adhesive layer (14) disposed therebetween [Fig. 3a and paragraph 0052]. Said combination of the outer protective layer, the inner rigid layer and the adhesive therebetween providing a very good and uniform layer which is particularly suited to be adhered to a second substrate using an adhesive layer [paragraph 0014].
Modified Iwamoto and De Vries are analogous inventions in the field of substrates and superstrates for used in solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing ta of the invention to modify either or both of said substrate and said superstrate in Modified Iwamoto to comprise an outer protective layer, an inner rigid layer and one adhesive layer disposed therebetween, as in De Vries, because such provides a very good and uniform layer which is particularly suited to be adhered to a second substrate using an adhesive layer [De Vries, paragraph 0014].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 10
Modified Iwamoto teaches the solar panel as set forth above, wherein said inner rigid layer (6) is a material selected from the group consisting of: polycarbonate (PC), glass, polypropylene (PP), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyethylene (PE), cyclic olefin copolymer (COC), and fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) [De Vries, paragraph 0052].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 11
Modified Iwamoto teaches the solar panel as set forth above, wherein said outer protective layer (9) is a material selected from the group consisting of: ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), glass, and ethylene chlorotrifluoroethylene (ECTFE) [De Vries, paragraph 0052].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 12
Modified Iwamoto teaches the solar panel as set forth above, wherein said adhesive layer (15) is a material selected from the group consisting of: acrylic-based or silicone-based adhesive transfer tape [De Vries, paragraph 0056].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 13
With regards to the limitation “wherein said inner rigid layer is a material having an elastic modulus ranging from about 1.79 GPa to about 3.24 GPa”, because the inner rigid layer (6) of the prior art is identical to the one claimed (e.g. PEN inner rigid layer), the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
The court has held that products of identical chemical composition cannot 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)
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14
With regards to the limitation “wherein said outer protective layer is a material having an elastic modulus ranging from about from about 0.490 GPa to about 0.827 GPa”, because the outer protective layer (9) of the prior art is identical to the one claimed (ETFE or ECTFE), the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
The court has held that products of identical chemical composition cannot 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)
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2016-178120A, Iwamoto et al. in view of US 2015/0136207, Giron et al. and US 2013/0000715, Moslehi et al.
Regarding claims 21 and 22
Iwamoto teaches a solar panel (10) [Figs. 1A-1B, para. 0024] comprising:
a substrate (back sheet 50) and a superstrate (cover glass 40) each including one or more preformed layers [Figs. 1A-1B, and para. 0024], said substrate (50) and superstrate (40) being pre-formed in a complementary shape when said solar panel is in an assembled configuration [para. 0033 and 0035]; and
a core (see resin layer 30 comprising solar cell strings 20) disposed therebetween, said core comprising a solar cell array (see three strings 20) including at least one solar cell (21) [para. 0024-0025], said solar cell array being encapsulated by one or more encapsulant layers (corresponding to resin layer 30 which seals/encapsulates the solar cell strings 20) [Figs. 1A-1B, para. 0032], said at least one solar cell (21) being of the semi-flexible, interdigitated, back-contact cell type and including a crystalline silicon wafer (the solar cell 21 is a back electrode type crystalline silicon solar cell comprising a p-electrode 21p and an n-electrode 21n) [Figs. 2A-2B and para. 0026], the crystalline silicon wafer selected from the group consisting of: a polycrystalline silicon wafer and a monocrystalline silicon wafer (the solar cell 21 may be made of crystalline silicon materials such as single crystal silicon and polycrystalline silicon) [para. 0054];
wherein in said assembled configuration, said core is integrally formed with said substrate (50) and said superstrate (40) such that said at least one solar cell (21) of said solar cell array is curved along two orthogonal axes (“[i]n reality, the bending rigidity of the reinforcing portion 23 is finite, so the reinforcing portion 23 and the solar cell 21 are not completely free from bending in the longitudinal direction of the reinforcing portion 23”) [paras. 0048-0050].
Regarding the radius of curvature, Iwamoto discloses the solar cells (21) bending about the X and Y directions (See para. [0049], wherein the rigidity of the cells is finite, and in practice, they are not completely free from also bending in the Y direction).
In the alternative, Khouri teaches a curved photovoltaic module comprising flexible or curved solar cells [para 0030], wherein the solar cells have a curvature complying with the curvature of the module [para. 0030], said solar cells having a radius of curvature in a range of 2.2 meters to 7 meters [para. 0046 and claim 23].
Said radius of curvature providing a surface that providing structural strength to the module without increasing its weight thereby facilitates shedding of precipitation and enhancing the efficiency of the curved photovoltaic module [paras. 0028 and 0046].
Iwamoto and Khouri are analogous inventions in the filed of curved photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least one solar cell of Iwamoto to have a radius of curvature in a range of 2.2 meters to 7 meters, as in Khouri, as such provides a module having structural strength to the module without increasing its weight thereby facilitates shedding of precipitation and enhancing the efficiency of the curved photovoltaic module.
Examiner notes that one would look into the benefits of precipitation shedding disclosed in Khouri for the curved solar panel of Iwamoto, as Iwamoto discloses installing the solar panel on the surface of a vehicle [para. 0075].
Modified Iwamoto is silent to the silicon wafer having a thickness of less than 0.40 mm and greater than about 0.12 mm (instant claim 21), and ranging from about 0.12 mm to about 0.18 mm (instant claim 22).
Giron, similar to Iwamoto, teaches a curved solar cell module comprising a core layer including a solar cell array of monocrystalline of polycrystalline silicon solar cells (6) having a thickness of 10 µm to 500 µm (0.02 mm to 0.5 mm) [Fig. 1, paras. 0021, 0030 and 0059-0062].
Modified Iwamoto and Giron are analogous inventions in the field of curved solar panels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solar cells within the array of modified Iwamoto to have a thickness of between 10 µm to 500 µm (0.02 mm to 0.5 mm), as in Giron, because such provides suitable bendability/flexibility of the solar cells used in curved solar panels [Giron, paras. 0021 and 0030].
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].
Modified Iwamoto teaches the electrode layers on the backside of the solar cell comprising aluminum rather than copper [Iwamoto, para. 0055].
Moslehi teaches a mechanically flexible or semi-flexible back-contact solar cell that enables conformal mounting on a non-flat or curved surface of an object, such as a contoured building wall or automotive body [Abstract and paras. 0046-0047], wherein the interdigitated based emitter and base metal grid layer may be made of any suitable conductive material such as aluminum OR copper [para. 0044].
Therefore, because Moslehi teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable materials for interdigitated back electrode layers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Moslehi teaches that copper leads to the anticipated success, said material is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Further, because copper and aluminum were art-recognized equivalent materials at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the aluminum disclosed in Iwamoto for copper as in Moslehi [MPEP 2144.06].
With regards to the limitation “semi-flexible”, because the crystalline silicon wafer of the prior art is the same as the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. It is noted that modified Iwamoto teaches that the solar cells 21 are flexible (bent) in a two-dimensional state.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, the court has held that 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that support for the newly amended claims can be found in paragraphs [0091] and [0092] of the instant specification.
Applicant states that support for the amendment to claim 1 can also be found in the Thurber Declaration III at paragraphs 19-23.
Applicant argues that the specification provides explicit support for a minimum radius of curvature Rc of about 3.4 meters, where paragraphs [0091] and [0092] explain the relationship between the minimum panel radius of curvature Rp, and the conditions that cause the solar cells disposed therein to bend in both directions simultaneously ("If Rp...is less than 3.76 meters, then the solar cell disposed therein must bend in both directions simultaneously").
Applicant argues that independent claim 1 has been amended to recite the minimum radius of curvature (Rc = 3.4 meters) of the Aptera solar panel in existence at or before the time of filing of the instant application and provides the Thurber Declaration III as evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention recited in amended claim 1.
Applicant further states the following “[b]ecause the originally-filed specification expressly identifies doubly curved cells, there is inherent in that disclosure, that the radius of curvature of the cell Rc must provide for bending sufficient for use in real-world applications. Thurber Declaration III provides probative evidence of such a real-world application, where Applicant measured form the Aptera solar panel a minimum radius of curvature Rp = 1.8 meters, which corresponds to a minimum radius of curvature of the functional solar cell lying underneath Rc = 3.4 meters. See: Thurber Declaration III, paragraphs 22 and 23. Applicant directs the Office to paragraphs 14- 24 of the Thurber Declaration III, which explains how a minimum radius of curvature of Rc = 3.4 meters was calculated. Applicant directs the Office to paragraph 25 of the Thurber Declaration III, which explains how a maximum radius of curvature of Rc = 6.0 meters was calculated.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a first matter, the originally filed specification does not disclose a maximum radius of curvature, nor does it disclose the equation
R
=
l
2
8
h
+
h
2
.
The numerical radius range of a maximum of about 6.0 meters to a minimum of about 3.4 meters are introduced for the first time in the affidavit. Written description must be found in the specification as originally filed, not post-filing declarations. Because neither the governing equation nor the claimed radius range is disclosed in the specification, the affidavit cannot be used to retroactively establish possession of that subject matter.
Applicant’s assertion that disclosure of doubly curved cells must necessarily be suitable for real-world applications improperly conflates enablement and written description. Written description does not ask whether the invention could be made to work in practice; it asks whether the inventions described the invention they now claim. That the curvature must be “sufficient” for use cannot substitute for disclosure of concrete structural parameters such as maximum or minimum radius of curvature.
Measurements taken after filing and disclosed only in the declaration reflect later characterization or experimentation, not what was disclosed or possessed at the time of filing. The affidavit does not explain what the specification already discloses, rather it supplies:
A radius equation not found in the specification
Specific numerical parameters arbitrarily selected
Results derived from said equation and numerical parameters
A claimed range unsupported by the original disclosure
Such evidence cannot be used to add missing structural limitations or numerical ranges to the specification. The showings in the declaration are not germane to the invention as disclosed in the specification as originally filed. Because the claimed radius of curvature range and exclusive bending mechanism are not disclosed in the originally filed specification, the claims fail to satisfy the written description requirement.
Applicant argues that Iwamoto fails to disclose any radius of curvature of a solar cell exhibiting two orthogonal axes of curvature, as recited in claim 1.
Applicant argues that “[t]he Office identifies that Iwamoto only qualitatively describes a de minimis curvature about two orthogonal axes, but fails to provide any prior art reference with enabling details” and that “[t]he Office uses confirmation bias to establish two orthogonal axes of curvature, and this is not what Iwamoto actually says or does.”
Applicant further argues that “[a]ll the prior art of record, including Iwamoto, is non-enabling for a specific range of double curvature.” Applicant further argues that Iwamoto at best teaches a solar panel construction that requires a reinforcement 23 to inhibit bending about a second axis of curvature, because the solar cells 21 of Iwamoto "are subjected to the 'force that attempts to bend the solar sell 21 in three dimensions."
Applicant states that Iwamoto further teaches that "the apparent bending rigidity of the solar cell 21 in the direction parallel to the longitudinal direction of the reinforcement 23 is increased, and the deformation of the solar cell 21 in the direction parallel to the longitudinal direction of the reinforcement 23 is smaller than in the case of no reinforcement section 23.
Applicant further draws attention to the claimed radius of curvature range,
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference explicitly discloses bending along a side parallel to the X direction and further explains that, in practice, the rigidity of the solar cell is finite such that bending necessarily occurs along the Y direction (see para. [0049], reproduced below). This disclosure is sufficient to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art that the solar cell exhibits curvature along two orthogonal axes.
[0049] In reality, the bending rigidity of the reinforcing portion 23 is finite, so the reinforcing portion 23 and the solar cell 21 are not completely free from bending in the longitudinal direction of the reinforcing portion 23.
That is, strictly speaking, in the solar cell module 10 according to this embodiment to which the reinforcing portion 23 is applied, the state of the solar cell 21 is close to a "two-dimensional bent" state.
The reference’s acknowledgement of finite rigidity and resultant secondary-axis bending conveys the presence of double curvature and would have been understood and implementable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, as previously explained, the claimed radius of curvature range is not disclosed in the specification. Because the range is unsupported, it is not considered part of the claimed invention for purposes of patentability. Applicant cannot rely on a radius of curvature range that lacks written-support to overcome the cited prior art. As set forth above, the limitation is interpreted in light of the specification as being supported, at most, by the single radius value of less 3.76 meters disclosed therein. The specification does not disclose or suggest possession of the broader radius range recited in the claims.
Regarding Giron, it is noted that said reference was merely cited for its teaching regarding monocrystalline or polycrystalline silicon solar cells (6) having a thickness of 10 µm to 500 µm (0.02 mm to 0.5 mm) which provide suitable bendability/flexibility of the solar cells used in curved solar panels [Giron, paragraphs 0021, 0030 and 0059-0062]. It is further noted that the photovoltaic cells in Giron have thicknesses as low as 0.02 mm (less than the claimed range of <0.4mm). Giron was not cited for any teaching regarding double bending/curve of the solar cells.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on Page 12-14 against Iwamoto, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As set forth above, the reference’s acknowledgement of finite rigidity and resultant secondary-axis bending conveys the presence of double curvature and would have been understood and implementable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, as previously explained, the claimed radius of curvature range and purported bending mechanism (bend only by forces imparted by the substrate and the superstrate) are not disclosed in the specification.
Regarding De Vries, it is noted that the reference was merely cited for its teaching regarding a flexible thin material (12) for use as a substrate or superstrate for PV cells or PV panels [Fig. 3a and paragraph 0007], the flexible thin material (12) comprising an outer protective layer (9), an inner rigid layer (6) and one adhesive layer (14) disposed therebetween [Fig. 3a and paragraph 0052].
Wherein said combination of the outer protective layer, the inner rigid layer and the adhesive therebetween providing a very good and uniform layer which is particularly suited to be adhered to a second substrate using an adhesive layer [paragraph 0014].
De Vries was not cited for any teaching regarding double bending/curve of the solar cells. De Vries is not required to teach the unsupported range or asserted exclusive bending mechanism, also unsupported.
Regarding Moslehi, the same response as in Giron and De Vries applies.
Regarding Gochermann (no longer relied upon), the reference discloses: “[t]he solar generator is designed as a curved laminate of some one-dimensionally bent solar cells and some two-dimensionally bent solar cells.” Affidavits or declarations attacking the operability of a patent cited as a reference must rebut the presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that reinforcements (element 23) reduce bending stress and keep cells flat, it is noted that Iwamoto discloses that the rigidity of the reinforcing portion 23 is finite and the solar cell 21 also bends to an extent in the Y direction (see paras. 0048-0049).
As set forth above, the reference’s acknowledgement of finite rigidity and resultant secondary-axis bending conveys the presence of double curvature and would have been understood and implementable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, as previously explained, the claimed radius of curvature range and purported bending mechanism (bend only by forces imparted by the substrate and the superstrate) are not disclosed in the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721