DETAILED ACTION
This is the third Office Action regarding application number 18/275,877, filed on 08/04/2023, which is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/053695, filed on 02/15/2022, and which claims foreign priority to NL 2027572, filed on 02/17/2021.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 12/18/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, and 10-13 are currently pending.
Claims 5 and 7-9 are cancelled.
Claims 12 and 13 are new.
Claims 1 and 6 are amended.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 10-13 are examined below.
The Office’s objections to the Drawings are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, the Office has set forth a new ground of rejection.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 12/18/2025 have been carefully considered but they are not found persuasive at this time.
The applicant asserts that “[t]he function of the slits is not disclosed in Urien”, “the slits do not allow the module of Urien to be stretched as this would require a complete cutting of the first conductive film”, and “there would not be any conductivity between the cells at opposite sides of the slits” (Remarks 8). The examiner does not agree because this argues against the URIEN reference for slits when, in fact, the examiner relies on the primary LALVANI reference to teach all of the recited structure and function of the recited incisions. Therefore, the remarks argue against the reference individually instead of against their reasonable combination and resulting device.
The applicant asserts that “[s]imply applying Lalvani’s multi-orientation slit patterns to Takechi’s solar sheet would … [sever] electrical connections and [render] the module inoperative” (Id. at 8-9). The examiner does not agree because it seems only conjecture that the only method of “simply applying Lalvani’s multi-orientation slit patterns” would, in fact, totally disconnect the electrical connections and result in an inoperative device. The examiner also does not believe that a competent skilled artisan would review the cited prior art references, then fail to take logical steps to maintain the useful electrical connections while combining together the beneficial insights and instructions from LALVANI when creating the slit patterns. The examiner inquires to the applicant to explain further why its position assumes that a skilled artisan’s only option would be to disconnect and sever all of the solar cells, when doing so would be very illogical. The examiner also offers that the prior art references are not required to also explain the exact process to accomplish otherwise obvious structural features and arrangements.
For purposes of claim interpretation, the examiner understands the newly added limitation to mean: (1) “in which the foil is or comprises a back-contact foil and the incisions are made in the back-contact foil,” (2) “in which the foil comprises thin film solar cells and the incisions are made in the thin film solar cells and/or” (3) “in which the foil comprises an encapsulant and the incisions are made in the encapsulant.” That is, either one or all of the three “in which the foil” statements must be true. In the interpretations set forth below, the examiner determines that in each rejection the prior art suggests at least the first “in which the foil” condition would be true.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 each individually recite the following limitations directed to incisions: first, on line 2, the claims recite “a multitude of incisions”, then in line 4, recite “a first group of incisions” and “a second group of incisions”, then in line 5, recite “each of the incisions”, then in lines 8 and 10, recite “the incisions”. The examiner determines that the claims fail to employ sufficient antecedent basis of the recited incision features. The claims do not recite that the multitude of incisions comprises a first group of incisions and a second group of incisions. Further, the recitation of “the incisions” in lines 5, 8, and 10 fail to properly set forth the specific group of incisions referred to. Therefore, the claims fail to sufficiently describe the metes and bounds of the invention claimed. Claims 2-4, 6, and 10-12 each depend on an indefinite claim and are similarly rejected.
Claims 1 and 13 now recite “the foil is or comprises a back-contact foil”. The examiner cannot determine with certainty if the word “is” means “consisting of”. The examiner assumes the word “is” must mean something different than “comprises”, but cannot confidently interpret or understand how it affects the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “the border” but no border was previously recited.
Claim 3 recites “the incisions”, but is unclear whether these refer to the earlier recited “multitude of incisions”, “first group of incisions” or “second group of incisions”.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LALVANI (US 2007/0122590 A1) in view of URIEN (US 2012/0279549 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, LALVANI teaches a foil (sheet metal materials, para. 2)
the foil showing a multitude of incisions having two closed ends (slits 12),
the incisions dividing the foil in a number of mechanically interconnected areas (polygonal regions 2/3/4),
characterized in that the foil comprises at least a first group of incisions having a first orientation and a second group of incisions having a second orientation (two slit groups are oriented in a perpendicular manner),
each of the incisions having two closed ends (ends 13),
a first closed end located at a mechanical interconnection between a first cell and a second cell and a second closed end located at a mechanical interconnection between a third cell and a fourth cell (regions 2/3/4 are interpreted to read on the four cells),
the incision bordered by a mechanical interconnection (vertex regions 13) between the first cell and the third cell and bordered by a mechanical interconnection between the second cell and the fourth cell,
the incisions partly having a first orientation and partly having a second orientation, the first orientation different from the second orientation (two slit groups are oriented in a perpendicular manner).
Please see the substantially identical drawings of the 2007 prior art below compared to the applicant’s drawings.
LALVANI, FIG. 1 (PRIOR ART)
APPLICANT’S DRAWINGS
PNG
media_image1.png
695
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
872
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
LALVANI does not disclose expressly a solar panel, or that the foil is or comprises a back-contact foil and the incisions are made in the back-contact foil, in which the foil comprises thin film solar cells and the incisions are made in the thin film solar cells and/or in which the foil comprises an encapsulant and the incisions are made in the encapsulant.
URIEN teaches a flexible organic photovoltaic cell panel having a flexible substrate with slits formed within the thin solar cells, and also including an encapsulant (paras. 72, 178, and 190).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LALVANI and incorporate the claimed incisions within the solar cells and/or the encapsulant to form a back-contact foil and flexible curved solar panel as taught by URIEN, because this allows the use of particular economical production techniques like roll-to-roll (URIEN, para. 24). Skilled artisans would also instantly recognize the accompanying benefits of the double curve flexibility provided by the incision pattern taught by LALVANI allows for an even greater array of allowable shapes.
Upon combination of the prior art teachings, the examiner determines that the foil would then comprise “a back-contact foil and the incisions are made in the back-contact foil”. The examiner further asserts and concludes that the combination of the prior art references would then generate a solar panel enabled for double curvature, thus a “double curved” solar panel is a logical configuration outcome, based on the finite set of options: uncurved, single curved, and double curved.
Claim 13 recites an intended use of a foil used in a double curved solar panel. The examiner concludes that the prior art product must only be capable of the recited use, and that the structure and components described by the prior art references would certainly be capable of performing the intended use as it is substantially identical to the structure of the applicant’s disclosed embodiments.
Regarding claim 2, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1 further comprising one or more incisions having only one closed end (half slits 11) ending at a mechanical interconnection, said incisions intersecting the border of the foil (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1 in which the incisions are straight incisions and the first orientation and the second orientation are perpendicular to each other (Fig. 1 illustrates the recited identical features).
Regarding claim 4, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1 in which all mechanically interconnected areas have an identical size and outline (Fig. 1 illustrates the recited identical features).
Regarding claim 6, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1 in which at least part of the back-contact foil comprises an electrically conductive layer (metal materials are understood by skilled artisans to be electrically conductive).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LALVANI (US 2007/0122590 A1) in view of URIEN (US 2012/0279549 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of LIN (US 2010/0055824 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1, but does not describe its use in a vehicle (claim 10) or a Building Integrated Photovoltaic system (claim 11).
LIN teaches that flexible solar panels have diverse applications, such as in vehicles and in Building Integrated Photovoltaics (para. 5).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LALVANI and employ the flexible foils in diverse applications like vehicles and in Building Integrated Photovoltaics as taught by LIN because they are low cost, light weight, and create new opportunities to exploit received solar energy.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LALVANI (US 2007/0122590 A1) in view of TAKECHI (US 2014/0130848 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, LALVANI teaches a foil (sheet metal materials, para. 2)
the foil showing a multitude of incisions having two closed ends (slits 12),
the incisions dividing the foil in a number of mechanically interconnected areas (polygonal regions 2/3/4),
characterized in that the foil comprises at least a first group of incisions having a first orientation and a second group of incisions having a second orientation (two slit groups are oriented in a perpendicular manner),
each of the incisions having two closed ends (ends 13),
a first closed end located at a mechanical interconnection between a first cell and a second cell and a second closed end located at a mechanical interconnection between a third cell and a fourth cell (regions 2/3/4 are interpreted to read on the four cells),
the incision bordered by a mechanical interconnection (vertex regions 13) between the first cell and the third cell and bordered by a mechanical interconnection between the second cell and the fourth cell,
the incisions partly having a first orientation and partly having a second orientation, the first orientation different from the second orientation (two slit groups are oriented in a perpendicular manner).
Please see the substantially identical drawings of the 2007 prior art below compared to the applicant’s drawings.
LALVANI, FIG. 1 (PRIOR ART)
APPLICANT’S DRAWINGS
PNG
media_image1.png
695
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
872
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
LALVANI does not disclose expressly a solar panel, or that the foil is or comprises a back-contact foil and the incisions are made in the back-contact foil, in which the foil comprises thin film solar cells and the incisions are made in the thin film solar cells and/or in which the foil comprises an encapsulant and the incisions are made in the encapsulant.
TAKECHI teaches a flexible organic photovoltaic cell panel having a flexible substrate with slits formed within the thin solar cells, and also including an encapsulant (annotated Fig. 3), and the drawings disclosure a “double curved” solar panel.
PNG
media_image3.png
404
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LALVANI and incorporate the claimed incisions within the solar cells and/or the encapsulant to form a back-contact foil and flexible curved solar panel as taught by TAKECHI, because this allows for a three-dimensional curvature (TAKECHI, abstract). Skilled artisans would also instantly recognize the accompanying benefits of the double curve flexibility provided by the incision pattern taught by LALVANI allows for an even greater array of allowable shapes.
Upon combination of the prior art teachings, the examiner determines that the foil would then comprise “a back-contact foil and the incisions are made in the back-contact foil”.
Claim 13 recites an intended use of a foil used in a double curved solar panel. The examiner concludes that the prior art product must only be capable of the recited use, and that the structure and components described by the prior art references would certainly be capable of performing the intended use as it is substantially identical to the structure of the applicant’s disclosed embodiments.
Regarding claim 2, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1 further comprising one or more incisions having only one closed end (half slits 11) ending at a mechanical interconnection, said incisions intersecting the border of the foil (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1 in which the incisions are straight incisions and the first orientation and the second orientation are perpendicular to each other (Fig. 1 illustrates the recited identical features).
Regarding claim 4, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1 in which all mechanically interconnected areas have an identical size and outline (Fig. 1 illustrates the recited identical features).
Regarding claim 6, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1 in which at least part of the back-contact foil comprises an electrically conductive layer (metal materials are understood by skilled artisans to be electrically conductive).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LALVANI (US 2007/0122590 A1) in view of TAKECHI (US 2014/0130848 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of LIN (US 2010/0055824 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified LALVANI teaches the foil of claim 1, but does not describe its use in a vehicle (claim 10) or a Building Integrated Photovoltaic system (claim 11).
LIN teaches that flexible solar panels have diverse applications, such as in vehicles and in Building Integrated Photovoltaics (para. 5).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LALVANI and employ the flexible foils in diverse applications like vehicles and in Building Integrated Photovoltaics as taught by LIN because they are low cost, light weight, and create new opportunities to exploit received solar energy.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner