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 24th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections based over Austin et al. in the Office Action dated October 30th, 2025 are maintained.
New rejections follow.
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, 10-13, and 15-18 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 and 15, Applicant has further limited the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass to be ultra-clear glasses being low iron glass. Applicant did not describe the first and second front glasses to be low-iron glasses. Accordingly, the claim 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. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10-13, and 15-18 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 Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the photovoltaic module”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if Applicant is referencing the first photovoltaic module or if a different photovoltaic module is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass are ultra-clear glasses”. Its unclear what corresponds to an “ultra-clear” glass. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “low iron”. Its unclear what exactly corresponds to a glass that has low iron. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant recites, “the photovoltaic module”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Its unclear if Applicant is referencing the first photovoltaic module or if a different photovoltaic module is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant recites, “the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass are ultra-clear glasses”. Its unclear what corresponds to an “ultra-clear” glass. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant recites, “low iron”. Its unclear what exactly corresponds to a glass that has low iron. Appropriate action is required.
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, 10-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 2015/0326176 A1) in view of Yang (CN-106887482-B) in view of Lee et al. (US 2012/0204939 A1) as evidenced by or in view of VSOM glass “What is ultra-clear glass? Why choose low iron glass?”. Yang is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 1, Austin discloses a photovoltaic module (Fig. 9) comprising: a first photovoltaic module (Fig. 9 top cell) and a second photovoltaic module provided on the back surface of the first photovoltaic module (Fig. 9 bottom cell). In regards to the limitation that the stiffening member, “is configured to enhance strength of the first photovoltaic module without reducing a power generation efficiency of the photovoltaic module or increasing processing difficulty”, Applicant discloses that a stiffening member that meets this limitation is a second photovoltaic cell connected in tandem with a first photovoltaic cell (See Instant Specification – Figure 3 & Paragraph 0113). Austin teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for the stiffening member to be configured “to enhance strength of the first photovoltaic module without reducing a power generation efficiency of the photovoltaic module or increasing processing difficulty”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Austin teaches that the first photovoltaic module sequentially comprises a first photovoltaic glass (Figure 9, #20 & Paragraph 0018), a first photovoltaic adhesive film (Figure 9, #14 top element & Paragraph 0064), a first cell chip (Figure 9, #18 & Paragraph 0066), a second photovoltaic adhesive film (Figure 9, #14 2nd from the top element & Paragraph 0064).
Austin teaches that the second photovoltaic module is connected to the back surface of the first photovoltaic module and sequentially comprises a third photovoltaic adhesive film (Figure 9, #14 3rd from the top element & Paragraph 0064), a second cell chip (Figure 9, #16 & Paragraph 0066), and a fourth photovoltaic adhesive film (Figure 19, #14 bottom element & Paragraph 0064), and a second photovoltaic front glass (Figure 9, #12 & Paragraph 0018).
Austin does not disclose a first photovoltaic rear glass and a second photovoltaic rear glass such that the first photovoltaic rear glass is connected to the second photovoltaic rear glass.
Yang discloses a first photovoltaic rear glass (Figure 1, #105) and a second photovoltaic rear glass (Figure 1, #107) such that the first photovoltaic rear glass is connected to the second photovoltaic rear glass (Page 4, 1st Paragraph). Yang discloses that this configuration has advantages of a simple preparation process, low energy consumption, low cost, and can improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell and has greater market application potential (Page 3, Last 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 first photovoltaic rear glass and a second photovoltaic rear glass such that the first photovoltaic rear glass is connected to the second photovoltaic rear glass as disclosed by Yang in Austin’s photovoltaic module for the advantages of having a configuration with a simple preparation process, low energy consumption, low cost, and can improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell and has greater market application potential.
Modified Austin does not disclose the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass have a thickness each of 1.5 to 3.5 mm.
Lee et al. teaches an intermediate glass substrate made of low iron glass in a tandem photovoltaic device (analogous to Austin & Yang) that can have a preferred thickness of a few millimeters or less, which corresponds to at least 2 mm or less (Paragraph 0035). Lee et al. teaches that improved techniques for manufacturing PV materials and resulting devices are desired (Paragraph 0006). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first and photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass have a thickness of at least 2 mm or less in modified Austin’s PV module for the advantages of using a preferred thickness of a intermediate glass substrate that results in a improved resulting device. One of ordinary skill in the art would additionally appreciate that the thickness of intermediate glass substrates and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the thickness of Lee et al. intermediate glass substrate for the thicknesses of the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143, I, B
In regards to the limitation that the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass are ultra clear glasses. As evidenced by VSOM, the low iron glass of Yang is an ultra clear glass.
Alternatively, VSOM discloses that ultra-clear glass is known as low iron glass that has high light transmission, superior mechanical, physical, and optical properties (Page 1, 1st Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the ultra clear low iron glass as disclosed by VSOM as the material for Lee et al. low iron glass to ensure that the glass advantageously has high light transmission, superior mechanical, physical and optical properties.
In regards to the limitation, “the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic rear glass are screen printed glasses”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “ are screen printed glasses”. It has been shown that 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 (MPEP 2113).
In view of Claim 10, Austin, Yang, Lee et al., and VSOM glass are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Austin discloses that second photovoltaic module and the first photovoltaic module are of the same type or different types (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 11, Austin, Yang, Lee et al., and VSOM glass are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Austin teaches that the second photovoltaic module is a crystalline silicon solar cell module (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 12, Austin, Yang, Lee et al., and VSOM glass are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Austin teaches that the second photovoltaic module is a thin film solar cell module (Paragraph 0064).
In view of Claim 13, Austin, Yang, a Lee et al., and VSOM glass are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Yang discloses that the second photovoltaic module is connected to the back surface of the first photovoltaic module via a first adhesive layer (Figure 1, #106 & Page 4, 1st Paragraph).
In view of Claim 15, Austin discloses a photovoltaic module composite structure (Fig. 9) comprising: a first photovoltaic module configured to generate electricity with illumination (Fig. 9 top cell) and a second photovoltaic module connect to a back surface of the first photovoltaic module (Fig. 9 bottom cell),wherein the back surface is a surface of the first photovoltaic module facing away from a light receiving surface (Figure 9, the back surface faces away from top surface of the module).
In regards to the limitation that the stiffening member, “is configured to enhance strength of the first photovoltaic module without reducing a power generation efficiency of the photovoltaic module or increasing processing difficulty”, Applicant discloses that a stiffening member that meets this limitation is a second photovoltaic cell connected in tandem with a first photovoltaic cell (See Instant Specification – Figure 3 & Paragraph 0113). Austin teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for the stiffening member to be configured “to enhance strength of the first photovoltaic module without reducing a power generation efficiency of the photovoltaic module or increasing processing difficulty”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Austin teaches that the first photovoltaic module sequentially comprises a first photovoltaic glass (Figure 9, #20 & Paragraph 0018), a first photovoltaic adhesive film (Figure 9, #14 top element & Paragraph 0064), a first cell chip (Figure 9, #18 & Paragraph 0066), a second photovoltaic adhesive film (Figure 9, #14 2nd from the top element & Paragraph 0064).
Austin teaches that the second photovoltaic module is connected to the back surface of the first photovoltaic module and sequentially comprises a third photovoltaic adhesive film (Figure 9, #14 3rd from the top element & Paragraph 0064), a second cell chip (Figure 9, #16 & Paragraph 0066), and a fourth photovoltaic adhesive film (Figure 19, #14 bottom element & Paragraph 0064), and a second photovoltaic front glass (Figure 9, #12 & Paragraph 0018).
Austin does not disclose a first photovoltaic rear glass and a second photovoltaic rear glass such that the first photovoltaic rear glass is connected to the second photovoltaic rear glass.
Yang discloses a first photovoltaic rear glass (Figure 1, #105) and a second photovoltaic rear glass (Figure 1, #107) such that the first photovoltaic rear glass is connected to the second photovoltaic rear glass (Page 4, 1st Paragraph). Yang discloses that this configuration has advantages of a simple preparation process, low energy consumption, low cost, and can improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell and has greater market application potential (Page 3, Last 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 first photovoltaic rear glass and a second photovoltaic rear glass such that the first photovoltaic rear glass is connected to the second photovoltaic rear glass as disclosed by Yang in Austin’s photovoltaic module for the advantages of having a configuration with a simple preparation process, low energy consumption, low cost, and can improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell and has greater market application potential.
Modified Austin does not disclose the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass have a thickness each of 1.5 to 3.5 mm.
Lee et al. teaches an intermediate glass substrate in a tandem photovoltaic device (analogous to Austin & Yang) can have a preferred thickness of a few millimeters or less, which corresponds to at least 2 mm or less (Paragraph 0035). Lee et al. teaches that improved techniques for manufacturing PV materials and resulting devices are desired (Paragraph 0006). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first and photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass have a thickness of at least 2 mm or less in modified Austin’s PV module for the advantages of using a preferred thickness of a intermediate glass substrate that results in a improved resulting device. One of ordinary skill in the art would additionally appreciate that the thickness of intermediate glass substrates and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the thickness of Lee et al. intermediate glass substrate for the thicknesses of the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
In regards to the limitation that the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic front glass are ultra clear glasses. As evidenced by VSOM, the low iron glass of Yang is an ultra clear glass.
Alternatively, VSOM discloses that ultra-clear glass is known as low iron glass that has high light transmission, superior mechanical, physical, and optical properties (Page 1, 1st Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the ultra clear low iron glass as disclosed by VSOM as the material for Lee et al. low iron glass to ensure that the glass advantageously has high light transmission, superior mechanical, physical and optical properties.
In regards to the limitation, “the first photovoltaic front glass and the second photovoltaic rear glass are screen printed glasses”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “ are screen printed glasses”. It has been shown that 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 (MPEP 2113).
In view of Claim 16, Austin, Yang, Lee et al., and VSOM glass are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Austin teaches that the second photovoltaic module is configured to generate electricity with illumination (Paragraph 0066).
In view of Claim 17, Austin, Yang, Lee et al., and VSOM glass are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Yang discloses that the second photovoltaic module is connected to the back surface of the first photovoltaic module via a first adhesive layer (Figure 1, #106 & Page 4, 1st Paragraph).
In view of Claim 18, Austin, Yang, Lee et al., and VSOM glass are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Yang was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to connect the first photovoltaic module back surface to the second photovoltaic module (Page 7, 2nd Paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Austin does not disclose that a stiffening member is provided on a back surface of the first photovoltaic module and configured to enhance strength of the first photovoltaic module without reducing a power generation efficiency of the photovoltaic module or increasing processing difficulty. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that the limitation that the stiffening member, “is configured to enhance strength of the first photovoltaic module without reducing a power generation efficiency of the photovoltaic module or increasing processing difficulty”, Applicant discloses that a stiffening member that meets this limitation is a second photovoltaic cell connected in tandem with a first photovoltaic cell (See Instant Specification – Figure 3 & Paragraph 0113). Austin teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for the stiffening member to be configured “to enhance strength of the first photovoltaic module without reducing a power generation efficiency of the photovoltaic module or increasing processing difficulty”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to combine Austin and Yang. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that while Austin does not disclose a first photovoltaic rear glass and a second photovoltaic rear glass such that the first photovoltaic rear glass is connected to the second photovoltaic rear glass. Yang discloses a first photovoltaic rear glass (Figure 1, #105) and a second photovoltaic rear glass (Figure 1, #107) such that the first photovoltaic rear glass is connected to the second photovoltaic rear glass (Page 4, 1st Paragraph). Yang discloses that this configuration has advantages of a simple preparation process, low energy consumption, low cost, and can improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell and has greater market application potential (Page 3, Last 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 first photovoltaic rear glass and a second photovoltaic rear glass such that the first photovoltaic rear glass is connected to the second photovoltaic rear glass as disclosed by Yang in Austin’s photovoltaic module for the advantages of having a configuration with a simple preparation process, low energy consumption, low cost, and can improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell and has greater market application potential.
Additionally, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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