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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 2/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 3 is amended. Claim 14-15 and 27-29 are canceled. Claim 30 is newly added. Currently, claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, 19, 24-26 and 30 are pending in the application.
Previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, 19 and 24-26 is maintained since Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection. See responses to arguments below.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, 14-15, 24-26 and 30 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Plessing (US 2003/0029493).
Regarding claim 1, Plessing discloses solar cell assembly comprising:
a photovoltaic cell (2, figs. 1-2);
a supporting substrate (see carrier material 3 in fig. 1, or encapsulant 4’ in fig. 2) forming a bottom surface of the solar cell assembly (see figs. 1 and 2) disposed beneath the photovoltaic cell (2, see figs. 1-2); and
a barrier assembly (see the encapsulation material 4, see figs. 1, 1a and 2) comprising
a barrier film (PETP film and barrier 9 consisting of inorganic oxide layer 7 and carrier layer 6, see figs. 1, 1a, and 2; example b) of [0025-0030] and [0037]), and
a polyurethane outer protective film layer (see top coating of polyurethane for weather protection layer 8) bonded directly to an exposed major surface of the barrier film (or the PETP film and barrier 9, see figs. 1 and 2, [0025-0030]);
wherein the barrier assembly (PETP film and barrier 9) is disposed above the photovoltaic cell (2, see figs. 1-2) and the polyurethane outer protective film layer (top coating of weather protection layer 8) forms a top surface of the solar cell assembly that is exposed to incoming light (see figs. 1, 1a, and 2).
It is noted that the top coating of the outermost weather protection layer (8) is inherently an outer protective film layer that forms the top surface of the solar cell assembly and that is exposed to incoming light.
Plessing exemplifies using polyurethane for the outer protective film layer (or top coating of the weather protection layer 8, see [0026]); the reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Alternatively, Plessing teaches using polyurethane for the outer protective film layer (or the top coating of the weather protection layer 8) among another polymer. Plessing does not teach using polyurethane exclusively.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have used polyurethane for the outer protective film (or top coating of the weather protection layer 8), because Plessing explicitly suggests doing so.
Regarding claim 3, Plessing discloses an assembly as in claim 1 above, teaches the barrier assembly (4) further comprises a polymeric film substrate (5) having first (or top) and second (bottom) major surfaces; wherein the barrier film (9 or inorganic oxide 7 and carrier 6) is disposed on the first major surface of the polymeric film substrate (5, see figs. 1, 1a and 2).
Regarding claim 10, Plessing discloses a solar cell assembly as in claim 1 above, and teaches the supporting substrate (4’, fig. 2) is a second barrier assembly (or 4’) forming a bottom surface of the solar cell assembly (see fig. 2), wherein the barrier assembly comprises a polyurethane outer protective film layer (or the top coating of weather protection layer 8, see explanation in claim 1 above). It is noted that the top coating (or the outermost layer) of a weather protection layer) forming the bottom surface of the solar cell assembly inherently forms the bottom surface of the solar cell assembly.
Regarding claim 19, Plessing discloses a solar cell assembly as in claim 1 above, wherein the polyurethane outer protective film layer must comprise urethane group (or ethyl carbamate)
PNG
media_image1.png
115
165
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which is an ester. In other words, a polyurethane must be an ester-based polyurethane.
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.
Claims 2, 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plessing (US 2003/0029493) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Weigel et al. (US 2012/0003448).
Regarding claim 2, Plessing discloses a solar assembly as in claim 1 above, and teaches the barrier film (9) consisting of an inorganic oxide layer (7) and a polymeric carrier (6), see [0028] and [0037]).
Plessing does not explicitly teach the inorganic oxide layer (or the inorganic oxide layer 7) disposed between first and second polymer layers, wherein the first and second polymer layers each comprise a polymeric reaction product of at least one of acrylic or methacrylic monomers.
Weigel et al. discloses a barrier film (224/226/228 in fig. 2, or 424/426/428, fig. 4) consisting of an inorganic oxide layer (or inorganic barrier layer 226 or 426 which made of metal oxide as described in [0070]) disposed between first and second polymer layers (224 and 228 or 424 and 428, see [0061-0069]), wherein the first and second polymer layers each comprise a polymeric reaction product of at least one of acrylic or methacrylic monomers (see [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell assembly of Plessing by using the barrier film consisting of an inorganic oxide layer disposed between first and second polymer layers, wherein the first and second polymer layers each comprise a polymeric reaction product of at least one of acrylic or methacrylic monomers as taught by Weigel et al. in place of the barrier (9) or (PETP film and barrier 9) of Plessing; because Weigel et al. teaches such barrier film is flexible (see [0016]), would provide transmission to visible and infrared light that do not interfere with absorption of the photovoltaic cell (see [0015]), would not exhibit delamination or curl that can arise from thermal stresses or shrinkage (see [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Plessing discloses a solar cell assembly as in claim 3 above, and teaches including an encapsulant (see flexible material 11, fig. 2) at least partially surrounding the photovoltaic cell and contacting with the polymeric film substrate (5’, fig. 2), wherein the second major surface (or the inner surface or the surface facing the photovoltaic cell 2) of the polymer film substrate (5’) is directly bonded to the encapsulant (11) disposed between the barrier assembly (9) and the photovoltaic cell (2, see fig. 2).
Plessinng shows using the encapsulant on the bottom barrier (4’), but not on the front barrier (4) in fig. 2.
Weigel et al. discloses the second major surface of the polymeric substrate (440, fig. 4, [0019]) contacts an encapsulant (450, fig. 4) that at least partially surrounds the photovoltaic cell (460, fig. 4), and wherein the second major surface (or the bottom surface) of the polymeric film substate (440) is directly bonded to the encapsulant (450) disposed between the barrier assembly (424/426/428, fig. 4) and the photovoltaic cell (460, fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell assembly of Plessing by including the polymeric substrate on the top side to have the second major surface contacting/directly bonded an encapsulant that at least partially surrounds the photovoltaic cell such that the encapsulant disposed between the barrier assembly and the photovoltaic cell as taught by Weigel et al.; because Plessing teaches doing so on the back side and Weigel et al. teaches including the polymeric substrate between assembly barrier assembly and the photovoltaic cell would support and minimize the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) mismatch ([0023-0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Plessing discloses a solar cell assembly as in claim 1 above, and teaches the photovoltaic cell (2) is a thin film solar cell ([0010]).
Plessing does not teach using an organic photovoltaic (OPV) cell, a perovskite solar cell or a dye-sensitized solar cell.
Weigel et al. discloses OPV and thin film solar cell are equivalently known in the art (or solar technologies, see [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the solar cell assembly of Plessing by using organic photovoltaic cell as taught by Weigel et al. in place of the thin film solar cell of Plessing as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent photovoltaic cell recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known photovoltaic cell 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/photovoltaic cell, 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).
Claims 8, 24-26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plessing (US 2003/0029493) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hebrink et al. (US 2012/0229893)
Regarding claims 8, 25 and 30, Plessing discloses a solar cell assembly as in claim 1 above.
Plessing does not disclose the top surface of the solar assembly comprises one of an AR coating, an anti-soiling coating, or a scratch resistant coating as claimed in claim 8, or the polyurethane protective film layer has a micro-structured surface as claimed in claim 25; nor does he teach a thickness of the polyurethane outer protective film layer is from 5mm to 150mm.
Hebrink et al. discloses including an anti-reflective coating (109 in fig. 10 or 119 in fig. 11) made of polyurethane ([0067-0074]) on the top surface of the solar cell assembly (100 or 110) which has a micro-structured surface (see figs. 10 and 11) with a height at least about 20 micrometers and up to about 150 micrometers (see [0071]). The height of the peaks of microstructures made of polyurethane corresponds to the claimed thickness of the polyurethane outer protective film layer, and about at least about 20 micrometers and up to about 150 micrometers is right within the claimed range of from 5mm to 150mm. Hebrink et al. also teaches such antireflective coating would minimize surface reflection and thereby increasing efficiency of the solar energy conversion device ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell assembly of Plessing by forming an antireflective (AR) coating of polyurethane with a micro-structured surface with a height of at least about 20 micrometers and up to about 150 micrometers, or the thickness of the micro-structured polyurethane of at least 20 micrometers and up to 150 micrometers, on top surface of the solar cell assembly as taught by Hebrink et al., because Hebrink et al. teaches such antireflective coating would minimize surface reflection and thereby increasing efficiency of the solar cell assembly (or conversion device).
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Plessing discloses a solar cell assembly as in claim 1 above.
Plessing does not teach the polyurethane protective film layer further comprises at least one of an ultraviolet light stabilizer, a hindered amine light stabilizer, an antioxidant, and a thermal stabilizer as claimed in claim 24; nor does he teach the polyurethane protective film layer has a hard segment content greater than 55% as claimed in claim 26.
Hebrink et al. teaches a hard coat (‘4 as shown in figs. 1-3, ‘6 in figs. 5-9, or ‘9 in figs. 10-11) of polyurethane including UV light stabilizer (see [0054-0056], [0073], [0083]) to provide mechanical durability such as impact or abrasion resistance ([0053-0054]) and good stability to weathering (see [0073] and [0083]). A hard coat is considered to have 100% hard segment, or a hard segment content greater than 55%.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell assembly of Plessing by using a hard coat of polyurethane comprising an ultraviolet light stabilizer as taught by Hebrink et al. in place of the top coating of polyurethane of Plessing, because Hebrink et al. taches such hard coating would prove mechanical durability and good stability to weathering.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plessing (US 2003/0029493) as applied to claims 10 and 1 above, in view Ovshinsky (US 2011/0086462).
Regarding claim 11, Plessing discloses a solar cell assembly as in claim 10 above.
Plessing does not explicitly teach the solar cell assembly is configured to accept reflected light through the bottom surface of the solar cell assembly.
Ovshinsky discloses including a back reflector (112 or 115, figs. 1 and 2C-2M) to improve the photovoltaic conversion efficiency by returning the radiation to increase the utilization and reduce losses ([0043]). As such, the solar cell assembly is configured to accept reflected light through the bottom surface of the solar cell assembly.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell assembly of Plessing by incorporating a back reflector as taught by Ovshinsky such that the solar cell assembly is configured to accept reflected light through the bottom surface of the solar assembly, because Ovshinsky teaches such back reflector would improve the photovoltaic conversion efficiency by returning radiation (or light) back, increasing the utilization and reducing losses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Plessing does not teach a “… polyurethane outer protective film layer bonded directly to an exposed major surface of the barrier film…”; because Plessing teaches PU/PMMA coating in paragraph [0026] that is not a stand-alone film forming an exposed outer surface as claimed, and Plessing teaches using polyurethane cement in examples a) and b).
The examiner replies that Plessing teaches “Weather protection layer 8: Top Coat coating of polyurethane OR polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and stabilized polyethylene terephthalate film (PETP film)” (emphasis added) in paragraph [0026]. As such, Plessing does teach a stand alone polyurethane top coat coating of the weather protection layer 8, and PMMA is an alternative material for the top coat coating layer. Plessing does not teach a combination of PU/PMMA as argued by Applicant. As seen in figs. 1 and 1a, the weather protection layer (8) is the topmost layer of the solar cell assembly, and the top coat coating of the topmost layer must be forms a top surface of the solar cell assembly that is exposed to incoming light.
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 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