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 December 15th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejections of claim 11, and 16-17 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 14 is maintained.
The rejections over Balasubramanian et al. in view of Lin et al. are maintained.
New grounds for rejection follow.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 Claim 14, Applicant recites, “gaps between the adjacent dots have an extension of 20-40 µm, 40-60 µm, 60-80 µm and 80-100 µm”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation, and the claim also recites 30µm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2011/0114178 A1)
In view of Claim 1, Balasubramanian et al. teaches a photovoltaic module (Figs. 2A & 12 - abstract), the module comprising: at least one solar cell having black or dark surface portions (Figure 12, #1208 & Paragraph 0003 – panels generally black); a material layer configured to provide for a selectable light-transmission gradient by structurally modulating transmission of light therethrough (Figure 1, #122 & Paragraph 0046-0047 – each region may be the same or different and have varying levels of opacity/transparency) the material layer is positioned over the black or dark surface portions of the at least one solar cell (Fig.12, #1203 & Paragraph 0082), the material layer having material portions with variable thickness, composition and/or coverage (Figure 8A-D, the “white” portions & Paragraph 0059) being lighter in colour or appearance than the black or dark surface portions of the at least one solar cell, the material portions having a transmissivity for visible light dependent on the composition and/or thickness of each material portion, the material layer being at least largely transmissive for light at areas between the material portions (Figure 1D, #122 & Paragraph 0063); and
a visible layer positioned over the material layer and including a continuous layer covering the plurality of material portions (Fig. 1D, #105), that is configured to provide for optical or aesthetic continuity while receiving structurally-modulated light transmitted via the material layer (Fig. 1D, #105 & Fig. 9, #904 – Paragraph 0072 – the light passes from the material layer in the form of dots that are semi-transparent – Paragraph 0046-0047), wherein the thickness, composition and/or lateral coverage of the material portions of the material layer are dependent on a required contract and/or a darkness, brightness or colour of features of the photovoltaic module (Figure 1D, #124 & Paragraph 0064-0070), and wherein the thickness and composition of the material portions vary across the module (Figure 8A-D & Paragraph 0059) and the visible layer is configured to provide for optical or aesthetic continuity while receiving structurally modulated light transmitted via the material layer (Fig. 1C, #105 - Paragraph 0046-0047 & 0059).
Balasubramanian et al. does not disclose the visible layer includes at least one of an image, a pattern or a color.
Lin et al. discloses a visible layer that is contiguous (Figs. 1-3, #410) that covers a material layer (Fig. 1-3, #42), wherein the visible layer that is contiguous may have a single color that is used to mask the original color of a photovoltaic member (Paragraph 0018). Lin et al. material layer is formed on top of the visible layer that is contiguous and used to exhibit a vivid and color image or picture, thus being analogous with the photovoltaic module as disclosed by Balasubramanian, except Lin et al. visible layer is formed to depict a color to advantageously mask the original color of the photovoltaic member (Paragraph 0018). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the visible layer comprise a color as disclosed by Lin et al. in Balasubramanian et al. visible layer to advantageously mask the original color of the photovoltaic member.
In view of Claim 2, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the material layer comprises a plurality of islands provided in a form of dots (Figure 1A/1D, #122 & Paragraph 0046).
In view of Claim 3, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots can each have a local thickness dependent on contrast, and darkness/brightness of features of the visible layer where the dot is located on the photovoltaic module (Figure 8A-D & Paragraph 0033, 0059).
In view of Claim 4, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that at least some of the dots have a transmissivity for visible light (Paragraph 0059-0060).
In view of Claim 6, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots have a composition dependent on required/predetermined contrast and/or darkness or brightness of features of the photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0018 & 059-0060).
In view of Claim 7, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots have a transmissivity dependent on the compositive of the dots (Paragraph 0049 & 0076).
In view of Claim 8, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots comprise a first ink that (Paragraph 0018) may be opaque or not transparent (Paragraph 0065) and the dots comprise a second ink that may be a varnish (Paragraph 0066).
In view of Claim 9, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots can have a composition of 100% varnish have a local transmissivity that can vary from 0-50% (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 10, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches the dots are formed using a digital printing process (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 13, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches a diameter of the dots of the material layer and distance between the dots determines a coverage of the material layer selected based on contrast or darkness of brightness of the photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0053-0063).
In view of Claim 14, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots have a diameter ranged from 20 microns, 40 microns, 60 microns, 80 microns (Paragraph 0052).
In view of Claim 15, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the thickness and composition of the dots of the material layer and properties of the image of the visible layer are selected such that at least the majority or all areas of the visible layer and the material layer have a transmissivity for visible light greater than zero (Figure 8 - Paragraph 0033, 0049).
In view of Claim 16, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the thickness of the dots may be reduced to at least half of their size (Paragraph 0059) and the dots can block transmission of visible light by more than 90% (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 17, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the isolated regions may be made from 100% ink (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 18, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Balasubramanian et al. teaches the at least one solar cell is a cadmium telluride based solar cell (Paragraph 0085 – cadmium telluride).
In view of Claim 19, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Balasubramanian et al. teaches the visible layer the first visible layer is positioned over a first major surface of the at least one solar cell (Figure 12, #1203), and a second visible layer that includes a colour, and wherein the second visible layer is positioned over a second major surface of the at least one solar cell and which is opposite the first major surface such that the first and second visible layers are visible at opposite sides of the at least one solar cell (Figure 12, #1210 & Paragraph 0082 – a protective back cover has a colour).
In view of Claim 20, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. does not explicitly disclose a layer of clear varnish or transparent ink is positioned over the material layer to substantially equalize height differences of the dots and substantially fill gaps between adjacent dots.
Lin et al. discloses a transparent varnish is positioned over a material layer to substantially equalize height differences of dots and substantially fill gaps between adjacent dots (Figure 1-2, #510 fills the gaps between dots of material layer #420 – Paragraph 0019) as well as being directed towards a photovoltaic module that exhibit a colorful picture or pattern (Paragraph 0008). Lin et al. teaches that this configuration may also prevent the photovoltaic member from oxidation or erosion (Paragraph 0028). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a layer of transparent varnish positioned over a material layer to substantially equalize height differences of dots and substantially fill gaps between adjacent dots as disclosed by Lin et al. in Balasubramanian et al. material layer for the advantages of preventing the photovoltaic member from oxidation or erosion.
In view of Claim 41, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Balasubramanian et al. discloses that at least one of the gaps between adjacent dots can have an extension approximately of 30 microns (Paragraph 0052-0053).
In view of Claim 42, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the thickness of the dots may be reduced to 30% or less (Paragraph 0059 – when in a 5:1 ratio) and the dots can block transmission of visible light by more than 90% (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 43, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 17. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the isolated regions may be made from 100% ink (Paragraph 0064).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2011/0114178 A1) in view of Alameh (WO 2019/200425 A1).
In view of Claim 5, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. does disclose that the majority of the dots are largely invisible to the naked eye by being at least 95% transparent (Paragraph 0007), but does not disclose that the thickness of the dots is within the range of 0-5 microns.
Alameh discloses that the majority of dots have a thickness of 0.5-20 microns (Page 7, Lines 10-11). Alameh discloses that the instant invention solves problems in the prior art of printing thin layers of inks of different colors directly onto a dark solar panel typically yields dark images of very low contrast making this direct printing approach impractical (Page 2, Lines 1-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the printing configuration of Alameh in making the dots of Balasubramanian et al. photovoltaic module such that the majority of the dots have a thickness of 0.5-20 microns for the advantages of printing a higher contrast image over a dark solar panel.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2011/0114178 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0246777 A1).
In view of Claim 19, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. While modified Balasubramanian et al. discloses that the visible layer is a first visible layer positioned over a first major surface of the at least one solar cell, its not disclosed an additional second visible layer including one of: a colour, an image and a pattern, and wherein the second visible layer is positioned over a second major surface of the at least one solar cell which is opposite the first major surface such that the first and second visible layers are visible at opposite sides of the at least one solar cell.
Kim et al. discloses first and second visible layers that are disposed over the front and rear major surfaces of at least one solar cell (Fig. 3 & Paragraph 0042 – cover members are present on opposite sides of the module that have a color/image/pattern). Kim et al. discloses that the aesthetics of a solar cell panel when incorporated with a building can be improved (Paragraph 0040). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a second visible layer including a color, image or pattern on an opposite side of Balasubramanian et al. first visible layer for the advantage of improving the aesthetics of the solar cell panel if incorporated into a building.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2011/0114178 A1) in view of Kim (KR 202110147213 A). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 19, Balasubramanian et al. and Lin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. While modified Balasubramanian et al. discloses that the visible layer is a first visible layer positioned over a first major surface of the at least one solar cell, its not disclosed an additional second visible layer including one of: a colour, an image and a pattern, and wherein the second visible layer is positioned over a second major surface of the at least one solar cell which is opposite the first major surface such that the first and second visible layers are visible at opposite sides of the at least one solar cell.
Kim discloses first and second visible layers that are disposed over the front and rear major surfaces of at least one solar cell (Fig. 3, #60 and #70) that can both display a color image or pattern that are visible at opposite sides of at least one solar cell (Fig. 3, #10 – Page 2, 4th Paragraph). Kim discloses having additional design elements present on a rear surface of a solar cell can strengthen its design elements (Page 1, Last Paragraph) and that the designs can take the form of screen-printing using ink patterns (Page 3, 1st-2nd Paragraph), while also giving aesthetics to the panel (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate the visible layer is a first visible layer positioned over a first major surface of the at least one solar cell, its not disclosed an additional second visible layer including one of: a colour, an image and a pattern, and wherein the second visible layer is positioned over a second major surface of the at least one solar cell which is opposite the first major surface such that the first and second visible layers are visible at opposite sides of the at least one solar cell in Balasubramanian et al. photovoltaic module for the advantage of strengthening the design elements while also giving additional aesthetics to the panel.
Claims 1-4, 6-19, and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0246777 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Balasubramanian et al. teaches a photovoltaic module (Figs. 2A & 12 - abstract), the module comprising: at least one solar cell having black or dark surface portions (Figure 12, #1208 & Paragraph 0003 – panels generally black); a material layer configured to provide for a selectable light-transmission gradient by structurally modulating transmission of light therethrough (Figure 1, #122 & Paragraph 0046-0047 – each region may be the same or different and have varying levels of opacity/transparency) the material layer is positioned over the black or dark surface portions of the at least one solar cell (Fig.12, #1203 & Paragraph 0082), the material layer having material portions with variable thickness, composition and/or coverage (Figure 8A-D, the “white” portions & Paragraph 0059) being lighter in colour or appearance than the black or dark surface portions of the at least one solar cell, the material portions having a transmissivity for visible light dependent on the composition and/or thickness of each material portion, the material layer being at least largely transmissive for light at areas between the material portions (Figure 1D, #122 & Paragraph 0063); and wherein the thickness, composition and/or lateral coverage of the material portions of the material layer are dependent on a required contract and/or a darkness, brightness or colour of features of the photovoltaic module (Figure 1D, #124 & Paragraph 0064-0070), and wherein the thickness and composition of the material portions vary across the module (Figure 8A-D & Paragraph 0059)
Balasubramanian et al. does not disclose a visible layer positioned over the material layer and including a continuous layer covering the plurality of material portions, that is configured to provide for optical or aesthetic continuity while receiving structurally-modulated light transmitted via the material layer such that the visible layer includes at least one of an image, a pattern or a color.
Kim et al. discloses a visible layer that is continuous and disposed over the rear surface of at least one solar cell (Fig. 3, #110 & Paragraph 0042 – cover members are present on opposite sides of the module that have a color/image/pattern). Kim et al. discloses that the aesthetics of a solar cell panel when incorporated with a building can be improved (Paragraph 0040). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a visible layer including a color, image or pattern on an opposite side of Balasubramanian et al. material layer such that its continuous and covering the plurality of material portions from the opposite side (e.g., a matching layer of Balasubramanian) and configured to provide for optical or aesthetic continuity while receiving structurally-modulated light transmitted via the material layer for the advantage of improving the aesthetics of the solar cell panel if incorporated into a building.
In view of Claim 2, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the material layer comprises a plurality of islands provided in a form of dots (Figure 1A/1D, #122 & Paragraph 0046).
In view of Claim 3, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots can each have a local thickness dependent on contrast, and darkness/brightness of features of the visible layer where the dot is located on the photovoltaic module (Figure 8A-D & Paragraph 0033, 0059).
In view of Claim 4, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that at least some of the dots have a transmissivity for visible light (Paragraph 0059-0060).
In view of Claim 6, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots have a composition dependent on required/predetermined contrast and/or darkness or brightness of features of the photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0018 & 059-0060).
In view of Claim 7, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots have a transmissivity dependent on the compositive of the dots (Paragraph 0049 & 0076).
In view of Claim 8, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots comprise a first ink that (Paragraph 0018) may be opaque or not transparent (Paragraph 0065) and the dots comprise a second ink that may be a varnish (Paragraph 0066).
In view of Claim 9, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots can have a composition of 100% varnish have a local transmissivity that can vary from 0-50% (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 10, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches the dots are formed using a digital printing process (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claims 11-12, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. discloses that an image is printed using the colors of a combination that includes cyan, magenta, or yellow or other color combinations known in the art (Paragraph 0067). In regards to Applicant’s limitation that the image is printed using only cyan, magenta, and yellow, the Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that modified Balasubramanian et al. disclose that the colors may include a combination of cyan, magenta, or yellow or other combinations known in the art by disclose two or more colors, or three or more colors may be used in combination with one another (Paragraph 0067). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the substituted components and their functions are known in the art, for example, the different combinations are utilized to provide any desired color of an image a user would need. One of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at these substitutions by utilizing these colors together, for example, three or more colors selected from cyan, magenta or yellow. See MPEP 2143. B.
In view of Claim 13, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches a diameter of the dots of the material layer and distance between the dots determines a coverage of the material layer selected based on contrast or darkness of brightness of the photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0053-0063).
In view of Claim 14, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots have a diameter ranged from 20 microns, 40 microns, 60 microns, 80 microns (Paragraph 0052).
In view of Claim 15, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Modified Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the thickness and composition of the dots of the material layer and properties of the image of the visible layer are selected such that at least the majority or all areas of the visible layer and the material layer have a transmissivity for visible light greater than zero (Figure 8 - Paragraph 0033, 0049).
In view of Claim 16, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the thickness of the dots may be reduced to at least half of their size (Paragraph 0059) and the dots can block transmission of visible light by more than 90% (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 17, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the isolated regions may be made from 100% ink (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 18, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Balasubramanian et al. teaches the at least one solar cell is a cadmium telluride based solar cell (Paragraph 0085 – cadmium telluride).
In view of Claim 19, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. re relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Balasubramanian et al. teaches the visible layer the first visible layer is positioned over a first major surface of the at least one solar cell (Figure 12, #1203), and a second visible layer that includes a colour, and wherein the second visible layer is positioned over a second major surface of the at least one solar cell and which is opposite the first major surface such that the first and second visible layers are visible at opposite sides of the at least one solar cell (Figure 12, #1210 & Paragraph 0082 – a protective back cover has a colour).
In view of Claim 41, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Balasubramanian et al. discloses that at least one of the gaps between adjacent dots can have an extension approximately of 30 microns (Paragraph 0052-0053).
In view of Claim 42, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the thickness of the dots may be reduced to 30% or less (Paragraph 0059 – when in a 5:1 ratio) and the dots can block transmission of visible light by more than 90% (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 43, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 17. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the isolated regions may be made from 100% ink (Paragraph 0064).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0246777 A1) in view of Alameh (WO 2019/200425 A1).
In view of Claim 5, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. does disclose that the majority of the dots are largely invisible to the naked eye by being at least 95% transparent (Paragraph 0007), but does not disclose that the thickness of the dots is within the range of 0-5 microns.
Alameh discloses that the majority of dots have a thickness of 0.5-20 microns (Page 7, Lines 10-11). Alameh discloses that the instant invention solves problems in the prior art of printing thin layers of inks of different colors directly onto a dark solar panel typically yields dark images of very low contrast making this direct printing approach impractical (Page 2, Lines 1-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the printing configuration of Alameh in making the dots of Balasubramanian et al. photovoltaic module such that the majority of the dots have a thickness of 0.5-20 microns for the advantages of printing a higher contrast image over a dark solar panel.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0246777 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 2011/0114178 A1).
In view of Claim 20, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. does not explicitly disclose a layer of clear varnish or transparent ink is positioned over the material layer to substantially equalize height differences of the dots and substantially fill gaps between adjacent dots.
Lin et al. discloses a transparent varnish is positioned over a material layer to substantially equalize height differences of dots and substantially fill gaps between adjacent dots (Figure 1-2, #510 fills the gaps between dots of material layer #420 – Paragraph 0019) as well as being directed towards a photovoltaic module that exhibit a colorful picture or pattern (Paragraph 0008). Lin et al. teaches that this configuration may also prevent the photovoltaic member from oxidation or erosion (Paragraph 0028). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a layer of transparent varnish positioned over a material layer to substantially equalize height differences of dots and substantially fill gaps between adjacent dots as disclosed by Lin et al. in Balasubramanian et al. material layer for the advantages of preventing the photovoltaic member from oxidation or erosion.
Claims 1-4, 6-19, and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Kim (KR 202110147213 A). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 1, Balasubramanian et al. teaches a photovoltaic module (Figs. 2A & 12 - abstract), the module comprising: at least one solar cell having black or dark surface portions (Figure 12, #1208 & Paragraph 0003 – panels generally black); a material layer configured to provide for a selectable light-transmission gradient by structurally modulating transmission of light therethrough (Figure 1, #122 & Paragraph 0046-0047 – each region may be the same or different and have varying levels of opacity/transparency) the material layer is positioned over the black or dark surface portions of the at least one solar cell (Fig.12, #1203 & Paragraph 0082), the material layer having material portions with variable thickness, composition and/or coverage (Figure 8A-D, the “white” portions & Paragraph 0059) being lighter in colour or appearance than the black or dark surface portions of the at least one solar cell, the material portions having a transmissivity for visible light dependent on the composition and/or thickness of each material portion, the material layer being at least largely transmissive for light at areas between the material portions (Figure 1D, #122 & Paragraph 0063); and wherein the thickness, composition and/or lateral coverage of the material portions of the material layer are dependent on a required contract and/or a darkness, brightness or colour of features of the photovoltaic module (Figure 1D, #124 & Paragraph 0064-0070), and wherein the thickness and composition of the material portions vary across the module (Figure 8A-D & Paragraph 0059)
Balasubramanian et al. does not disclose a visible layer positioned over the material layer and including a continuous layer covering the plurality of material portions, that is configured to provide for optical or aesthetic continuity while receiving structurally-modulated light transmitted via the material layer such that the visible layer includes at least one of an image, a pattern or a color.
Kim discloses visible layers that can present and disposed over the rear surface of at least one solar cell (Fig. 3, #60 and #70) that can both display a color image or pattern that are visible at opposite sides of at least one solar cell (Fig. 3, #10 – Page 2, 4th Paragraph). Kim discloses having additional design elements present on a rear surface of a solar cell can strengthen its design elements (Page 1, Last Paragraph) and that the designs can take the form of screen-printing using ink patterns (Page 3, 1st-2nd Paragraph), while also giving aesthetics to the panel (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a visible layer including a color, image or pattern on an opposite side of Balasubramanian et al. material layer such that its continuous and covering the plurality of material portions from the opposite side (e.g., a matching layer of Balasubramanian) and configured to provide for optical or aesthetic continuity while receiving structurally-modulated light transmitted via the material layer for the advantage of strengthening the design elements while also giving additional aesthetics to the panel.
In view of Claim 2, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the material layer comprises a plurality of islands provided in a form of dots (Figure 1A/1D, #122 & Paragraph 0046).
In view of Claim 3, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots can each have a local thickness dependent on contrast, and darkness/brightness of features of the visible layer where the dot is located on the photovoltaic module (Figure 8A-D & Paragraph 0033, 0059).
In view of Claim 4, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that at least some of the dots have a transmissivity for visible light (Paragraph 0059-0060).
In view of Claim 6, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots have a composition dependent on required/predetermined contrast and/or darkness or brightness of features of the photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0018 & 059-0060).
In view of Claim 7, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots have a transmissivity dependent on the compositive of the dots (Paragraph 0049 & 0076).
In view of Claim 8, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots comprise a first ink that (Paragraph 0018) may be opaque or not transparent (Paragraph 0065) and the dots comprise a second ink that may be a varnish (Paragraph 0066).
In view of Claim 9, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots can have a composition of 100% varnish have a local transmissivity that can vary from 0-50% (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 10, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches the dots are formed using a digital printing process (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claims 11-12, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. discloses that an image is printed using the colors of a combination that includes cyan, magenta, or yellow or other color combinations known in the art (Paragraph 0067). In regards to Applicant’s limitation that the image is printed using only cyan, magenta, and yellow, the Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that modified Balasubramanian et al. disclose that the colors may include a combination of cyan, magenta, or yellow or other combinations known in the art by disclose two or more colors, or three or more colors may be used in combination with one another (Paragraph 0067). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the substituted components and their functions are known in the art, for example, the different combinations are utilized to provide any desired color of an image a user would need. One of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at these substitutions by utilizing these colors together, for example, three or more colors selected from cyan, magenta or yellow. See MPEP 2143. B.
In view of Claim 13, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches a diameter of the dots of the material layer and distance between the dots determines a coverage of the material layer selected based on contrast or darkness of brightness of the photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0053-0063).
In view of Claim 14, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the dots have a diameter ranged from 20 microns, 40 microns, 60 microns, 80 microns (Paragraph 0052).
In view of Claim 15, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Modified Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the thickness and composition of the dots of the material layer and properties of the image of the visible layer are selected such that at least the majority or all areas of the visible layer and the material layer have a transmissivity for visible light greater than zero (Figure 8 - Paragraph 0033, 0049).
In view of Claim 16, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the thickness of the dots may be reduced to at least half of their size (Paragraph 0059) and the dots can block transmission of visible light by more than 90% (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 17, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the isolated regions may be made from 100% ink (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 18, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Balasubramanian et al. teaches the at least one solar cell is a cadmium telluride based solar cell (Paragraph 0085 – cadmium telluride).
In view of Claim 19, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Balasubramanian et al. teaches the visible layer the first visible layer is positioned over a first major surface of the at least one solar cell (Figure 12, #1203), and a second visible layer that includes a colour, and wherein the second visible layer is positioned over a second major surface of the at least one solar cell and which is opposite the first major surface such that the first and second visible layers are visible at opposite sides of the at least one solar cell (Figure 12, #1210 & Paragraph 0082 – a protective back cover has a colour).
In view of Claim 41, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Balasubramanian et al. discloses that at least one of the gaps between adjacent dots can have an extension approximately of 30 microns (Paragraph 0052-0053).
In view of Claim 42, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the thickness of the dots may be reduced to 30% or less (Paragraph 0059 – when in a 5:1 ratio) and the dots can block transmission of visible light by more than 90% (Paragraph 0060).
In view of Claim 43, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 17. Balasubramanian et al. teaches that the isolated regions may be made from 100% ink (Paragraph 0064).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Kim (KR 202110147213 A) in view of Alameh (WO 2019/200425 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 5, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. does disclose that the majority of the dots are largely invisible to the naked eye by being at least 95% transparent (Paragraph 0007), but does not disclose that the thickness of the dots is within the range of 0-5 microns.
Alameh discloses that the majority of dots have a thickness of 0.5-20 microns (Page 7, Lines 10-11). Alameh discloses that the instant invention solves problems in the prior art of printing thin layers of inks of different colors directly onto a dark solar panel typically yields dark images of very low contrast making this direct printing approach impractical (Page 2, Lines 1-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the printing configuration of Alameh in making the dots of Balasubramanian et al. photovoltaic module such that the majority of the dots have a thickness of 0.5-20 microns for the advantages of printing a higher contrast image over a dark solar panel.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2017/0085216 A1) in view of Kim (KR 202110147213 A) in view of Lin et al. (US 2011/0114178 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 20, Balasubramanian et al. and Kim are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Balasubramanian et al. does not explicitly disclose a layer of clear varnish or transparent ink is positioned over the material layer to substantially equalize height differences of the dots and substantially fill gaps between adjacent dots.
Lin et al. discloses a transparent varnish is positioned over a material layer to substantially equalize height differences of dots and substantially fill gaps between adjacent dots (Figure 1-2, #510 fills the gaps between dots of material layer #420 – Paragraph 0019) as well as being directed towards a photovoltaic module that exhibit a colorful picture or pattern (Paragraph 0008). Lin et al. teaches that this configuration may also prevent the photovoltaic member from oxidation or erosion (Paragraph 0028). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a layer of transparent varnish positioned over a material layer to substantially equalize height differences of dots and substantially fill gaps between adjacent dots as disclosed by Lin et al. in Balasubramanian et al. material layer for the advantages of preventing the photovoltaic member from oxidation or erosion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Balasubramanian et al. does not disclose a material layer designed to provide for a selectable light-transmission gradient by structurally modulating the transmission of light therethrough and a visible layer including a continuous layer that covers material portions of the material layer and is designed to provide for optical or aesthetic continuity while receiving structurally-modulated light transmitted via the material layer. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Balasubramanian et al. discloses a material layer designed to provide for a selectable light-transmission gradient by structurally modulating the transmission of light therethrough (Fig. 1D, #122 & Fig. 8, white portions – see Paragraphs 0047-0048 & 0059), and a visible layer that covers material portions of the material layer and is designed to provide for optical or aesthetic continuity while receiving structurally-modulated light transmitted via the material layer (Fig. 1D, #124 & Fig. 8, dark portion – See Paragraph 0047-0048 & 0059). Lin et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious for the visible layer to comprise a continuous layer covering the plurality of material portions. Accordingly, for the reasons given above this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine Balasubramanian et al. with Lin because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found no motivation to combine the two cited references because Balasubramanian focuses on decorative photovoltaic modules using conventional decorative ink layers to apply images or patterns on solar cells with an emphasis on opaque colored layers rather than transmissive gradient structures, meanwhile, Lin is primarily concerned with protective and masking ink layers within a laminated photovoltaic module structure, where the ink is applied as a continuous layer between the photovoltaic member and the transparent substrate and is not intended to be transmissive or optically graded or that when combined they would not teach the instant claim 1.
Balasubramanian et al. was relied upon to disclose a material layer configured to provide for a selectable light-transmission gradient by structurally modulating transmission of light therethrough (Figure 1, #122 & Paragraph 0046-0047 – each region may be the same or different and have varying levels of opacity/transparency). Balasubramanian et al. and a visible layer positioned over the material layer and including a continuous layer covering the plurality of material portions (Fig. 1D, #105), that is configured to provide for optical or aesthetic continuity while receiving structurally-modulated light transmitted via the material layer (Fig. 1D, #105 & Fig. 9, #904 – Paragraph 0072 – the light passes from the material layer in the form of dots that are semi-transparent – Paragraph 0046-0047).
Balasubramanian et al. does not disclose the visible layer includes at least one of an image, a pattern or a color.
Lin et al. discloses a visible layer that is contiguous (Figs. 1-3, #410) that covers a material layer (Fig. 1-3, #42), wherein the visible layer that is contiguous may have a single color that is used to mask the original color of a photovoltaic member (Paragraph 0018). Lin et al. material layer is formed on top of the visible layer that is contiguous and used to exhibit a vivid and color image or picture, thus being analogous with the photovoltaic module as disclosed by Balasubramanian, except Lin et al. visible layer is formed to depict a color to advantageously mask the original color of the photovoltaic member (Paragraph 0018). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Balasubramanian nor Lin disclose (1) any use of non-uniform white dotted structures under a continuous-magenta-yellow layer, (2) any optical structural hybrid layering or (3) any need to decouple a structural transmissivity layer from a continuous visible layer. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that its unclear where any of these limitations are present in the most recently filed claims. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726