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 August 5th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The objection to claims 18-20 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Kim are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
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 1-2, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 1, Kim discloses an awning (Fig. 1), comprising:
a reel (Fig. 2, #20 & Page 4, 5th Paragraph);
a tarpaulin adapted to be wound on the reel and capable of being in a fully retracted state (Fig. 2) or an extended state (Figs. 4-5, #30 & Page 4, 7th Paragraph);
a plurality of flexible solar cells integrated on at least one surface of the tarpaulin (Figs. 1-5, #40);
wherein when the tarpaulin is in the fully extended state, the plurality of flexible solar cells have a first photoelectric conversion area exposed to the external environment to be irradiated by direct sunlight (Figs. 4A-5B, #40),
when the tarpaulin is in a retracted state the plurality of flexible solar cells have a second photoelectric conversion area exposed the external environment (See Annotated Kim Figure 3, below);
and the area of the first photoelectric conversion area is greater than the area of the second photoelectric conversion area (See Annotated Kim Figure 3, below).
Annotated Kim Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
563
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does not disclose that when the tarpaulin is in the fully retracted state the plurality of flexible solar cells have a second photoelectric conversion area exposed to the external environment to be irradiated by direct sunlight.
Maimon et al. discloses that when a tarpaulin is a fully retracted state a plurality of flexible solar cells have a second photoelectric conversion area exposed to the external environment to be irradiated by direct sunlight (Paragraph 0060, 0279), the second photoelectric conversion area corresponds to the “end of the reel” that’s exposed to light. Maimon et al. teaches that this enables an RV or vehicle to generate electricity while the vehicle is still moving (Paragraph 0060). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Kim’s housing be absent (Fig. 2, #10), such that the “end of the reel” corresponding to the second photoelectric conversion area is exposed to the external environment to be irradiated by direct sunlight when the tarpaulin is in the fully retracted state for the advantages of generating electricity when the RV/vehicle is moving.
In view of Claim 2, Kim and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kim discloses the first photoelectric conversion area and the second photoelectric conversion area are located on the same surface of the tarpaulin (Figure 2, #40), and the first photoelectric conversion area comprises the second photoelectric conversion area (See Annotated Kim Figure 3, above – the first photoelectric conversion area “rectangle” encompasses the smaller second photoelectric conversion area “rectangle”).
In view of Claim 13, Kim and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kim discloses a fixing bracket configured to fix the awning to a mounting surface (Fig. 1 & 8, #10); and a retractable bracket configured to extend or retract the tarpaulin (Figure 2, #31); wherein the tarpaulin comprises a first end a second end opposite to the first end (Figure 2, #40 left and rightmost edges), the first end of the tarpaulin is connected to the reel (Figure 2, #40 leftmost edge to #20) and the second end of the tarpaulin is connected to the retractable bracket (Figure 2, #31).
In view of Claim 16, Kim and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kim teaches a vehicle body with the awning according to claim 1, wherein the awning is fixed to a vertical side wall of the vehicle body (Fig. 1 & 8, #10).
In view of Claim 17, Kim and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Kim teaches an energy storage device connected to the plurality of flexible solar cells of the awning (Page 6, 11th-13th Paragraph) and an electrical device connected to the energy storage device (Page 6, 11th-13th Paragraph – the output means).
In view of Claim 18, Kim discloses a method for manufacturing an awning including flexible solar cells (Page 2-3, Brief Description), comprising:
providing a tarpaulin (Figs. 1-5, #30 & Page 4, 7th Paragraph) and a plurality of flexible solar cells and arranging the plurality of flexible solar cells on at least one surface of the tarpaulin (Figs. 1-5, #40 & 1st Paragraph, Page 5);
providing a reel (Fig. 2, #20), and winding the tarpaulin on the reel such that the tarpaulin is capable of being in retracted state or extended state (Page 4, 7th-11th Paragraph);
wherein when the tarpaulin is in the extended state, the flexible solar cells have a first photelectric conversion area exposed to the external environment (Figs. 4A-5B, #40);
when the tarpaulin is in the retracted state the flexible solar cells have a second photoelectric conversion area exposed to the external environment and the area of the first photoelectric conversion area is greater than the area of the second photoelectric conversion area (See Annotated Kim Figure 3, below).
Annotated Kim Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
563
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does not disclose that when the tarpaulin is in the fully retracted state the plurality of flexible solar cells have a second photoelectric conversion area exposed to the external environment to be irradiated by direct sunlight.
Maimon et al. discloses that when a tarpaulin is a fully retracted state a plurality of flexible solar cells have a second photoelectric conversion area exposed to the external environment to be irradiated by direct sunlight (Paragraph 0060, 0279), the second photoelectric conversion area corresponds to the “end of the reel” that’s exposed to light. Maimon et al. teaches that this enables an RV or vehicle to generate electricity while the vehicle is still moving (Paragraph 0060). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Kim’s housing be absent (Fig. 2, #10), such that the “end of the reel” corresponding to the second photoelectric conversion area is exposed to the external environment to be irradiated by direct sunlight when the tarpaulin is in the fully retracted state for the advantages of generating electricity when the RV/vehicle is moving.
Claims 3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Raghunathan (US 2019/0386606 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 3, Kim and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kim teaches the plurality of flexible solar cells are arranged along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See Annotated Kim Figure 3, below). Kim discloses that flexible solar cells are adjacent in the first direction of the plurality of flexible solar cells form at least one solar module (Figs. 4a-5b, #40) but is silent on if the flexible adjacent solar cells are connected electrically in series.
Raghunathan discloses that solar cells are electrically interconnect to one another for example in series, parallel, or a combination thereof, and preferably arranged in an architecture to produce maximum energy (Paragraph 0023). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the solar cells connected electrically in series in Kim’s flexible adjacent solar cells for the advantage of having an architecture to produce maximum energy. Additionally, the substituted step of having cells connected electrically in series is a function that is known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted being in a series configuration and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143, I, B.
Annotated Kim Figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
563
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 4, Kim, Maimon et al., and Raghunathan are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. While Raghunathan discloses why its obvious to be in a series configuration, its not explicitly disclosed in modified Kim to have at least one solar cell module comprises a plurality of solar cells modules adjacent in the second direction connected in parallel to each other, adjacent flexible solar cells in the same solar cell module are connected in series through at least one wire.
Maimon et al. discloses that individual cells are electrically connected in series and parallel in order to teach a desired current and voltage of the film/module (Paragraph 0134). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kim’s at least one solar cell module comprises a plurality of solar cells modules adjacent in the second direction connected in parallel to each other, adjacent flexible solar cells in the same solar cell module are connected in series through at least one wire for the advantages of having a desired current and voltage in the at least one solar module. In regards specifically to the phrase, “at least one wire”, wires would be inherently present to form such connections.
In view of Claim 7, Kim, Maimon et al., and Raghunathan are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Kim discloses that the first direction is the axial direction of the reel, and the second direction is a direction in which the tarpaulin is to be extended or retracted (See Annotated Kim Figure 3, above).
In view of Claim 8, Kim, Maimon et al., and Raghunathan are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Kim discloses that when the tarpaulin is in a partially retracted state at least one of the plurality of first solar cell modules is fully or partially exposed to the external environment to form the second photoelectric conversion area (See Annotated Kim Figure 3, above).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Raghunathan (US 2019/0386606 A1) in view of Metin et al. (US 2012/0318318 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 5, Kim, Maimon et al., and Raghunathan are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Modified Kim does not teach a front side of a first flexible solar cell of the adjacent flexible solar cells is connected in series to a back side of a second flexible solar cell of the adjacent flexible solar cells adjacent to first flexible solar cell in the same solar cell module from the wire.
Metin et al. discloses a front side of a first flexible solar cell of the adjacent flexible solar cells is connected in series to a back side of a second flexible solar cell of the adjacent flexible solar cells adjacent to first flexible solar cell in the same solar cell module from a wire (Figure 2A, #54 & Fig. 5 – Paragraph 0032). Metin et al. teaches that this configuration can reduce problems of power losses due to current and voltage mismatches (Paragraph 0035). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt Metin et al. of making the series connection of modified Kim such that a first flexible solar cell of the adjacent flexible solar cells is connected in series to a back side of a second flexible solar cell of the adjacent flexible solar cells adjacent to first flexible solar cell in the same solar cell module from the wire for the advantages of reducing problems of power losses due to current and voltage mismatches.
In view of Claim 6, Kim, Maimon et al., Raghunathan, and Metin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Kim does not disclose that each of the plurality of flexible solar cells comprise a conductive substrate, a photoelectric conversion layer, a buffer layer, a transparent conductive layer and an extraction electrode stacked in sequence and the conductive substrate or the extraction electrode is connected to the wire.
Metin et al. teaches each of a plurality of flexible solar cells comprise a conductive substrate (Fig. 1, #11), a photoelectric conversion layer (Fig. 1, #14), a buffer layer (Fig. 1, #15, CdS in the CdS/ZnO stack) and a transparent conductive layer (Fig. 1, #15 – ZnO in the CdS/ZnO stack & Paragraph 0006-0007), wherein the conductive substrate and extraction electrode is connected to the wire (Figure 2A, #54 & Fig. 5 – Paragraph 0032). Metin et al. discloses that these types of solar cells have demonstrated the greatest potential for high performance, high efficiency and are low-cost thin film PV products (Paragraph 0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have each of the plurality of flexible solar cells comprise a conductive substrate, a photoelectric conversion layer, a buffer layer, a transparent conductive layer and an extraction electrode stacked in sequence and the conductive substrate or the extraction electrode is connected to the wire for the advantages of using a solar cell that has demonstrated the greatest potential for high performance, high efficiency and are low cost thin film PV products.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Raghunathan (US 2019/0386606 A1) in view of Morad et al. (US 2019/0081198 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 9, Kim, Maimon et al., and Raghunathan are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Modified Kim does not disclose a plurality of photovoltaic power optimizers, wherein each solar cell module is connected in series to a corresponding photovoltaic power optimizer.
Morad et al. discloses a plurality of photovoltaic power optimizers (Paragraph 0302 – each cell may have a power optimizer), and that each solar cell in a module may be connected in series (Paragraph 0008). Morad et al. teaches by including a plurality of photovoltaic power optimizers that the power optimization may produce higher voltages and increased partitioning that creates potential advantages for power optimization (Paragraph 0302). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have a plurality of photovoltaic power optimizers in modified Kim such that each solar cell module is connected in series to a corresponding photovoltaic power optimizer for the advantages of having a configuration that produces higher voltages and increased partitioning that creates potential advantages for power optimization.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Metin et al. (US 2012/0318318 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 10, Kim, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kim discloses that the plurality of flexible solar cells are laminated on the tarpaulin (Figure 2, #40) but does not disclose a back sheet and a front sheet stacked with each other, wherein the plurality of solar cells are encapsulated between the back sheet and the front sheet.
Metin et al. teaches a back sheet and a front sheet stacked with each other (Figure 2B, #60A & #60B), wherein a plurality of flexible solar cells are encapsulated between the back sheet and the front sheet (Figure 2B, # 52 & Paragraph 0012-0013). Metin et al. discloses that these types of solar cells have demonstrated the greatest potential for high performance, high efficiency and are low-cost thin film PV products (Paragraph 0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a back sheet and a front sheet stacked with each other, wherein the plurality of solar cells are encapsulated between the back sheet and the front sheet for the advantages of using a solar cell that has demonstrated the greatest potential for high performance, high efficiency and are low cost thin film PV products.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Babayan et al. (US 2017/0288081 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 10, Kim, and Maimon et al. are s relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Kim discloses that the plurality of flexible solar cells are laminated on the tarpaulin (Figure 2, #40) but does not disclose a back sheet and a front sheet stacked with each other, wherein the plurality of solar cells are encapsulated between the back sheet and the front sheet.
Babayan et al. teaches a back sheet and a front sheet stacked with each other (Figure 8, #810 & #820), wherein a plurality of flexible solar cells are encapsulated between the back sheet and the front sheet (Figure 8, #832 & Paragraph 0059). Babayan et al. teaches that the flexible modules may be used in environments where high vibration or deflection of the module will occur, or where the modules must conform to a curved surface. The ability for photovoltaic modules to be flexible enables the modules to be used in a wider range of environments and applications, and increases reliability (Paragraph 0058). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have a back sheet and a front sheet stacked with each other, wherein the plurality of solar cells are encapsulated between the back sheet and the front sheet for the advantages of having a configuration with increased reliability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Babayan et al. (US 2017/0288081 A1) in view of Morizane et al. (US 2011/0011552 A1) in view of Capps et al. (US 2007/0295389 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 11, Kim, Maimon et al., and Babayan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Babayan et al. teaches that the front sheet comprises a polymer film or PET film (Figure 8, #810), a first bonding layer stacked in sequence (Figure 8, #820), the back sheet comprises a seconding bonding layer (Figure 8, #840), and a second PET film stacked in sequence (Figure 8, #850), and the flexible solar cell is disposed between the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer (Figure 8, #832 & Paragraph 0059). Babayan et al. does not disclose a polymer film and a first PET film layer, wherein the sum of the thickness of the first PET film layer and the second PET film layer is less than or equal to 150 microns.
Morizane et al. discloses a polymer film (Figure 13, #4) and a first PET film layer (Figure 13, #6 & Paragraph 0089), wherein the sum of the thickness of a first PET film layer (Figure 13, #6) and second PET film layer (Figure 13, #5), wherein the sum of the thickness of the first PET film layer and the second PET film layer is equal to 150 microns (Paragraph 0062 & 0089). Morizane et al. teaches that this configuration improves reliability by improving moisture proofness (Paragraph 0010). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a polymer film and a first PET film layer, wherein the sum of the thickness of the first PET film layer and the second PET film layer is less than or equal to 150 microns for the advantage of improving reliability by improving moisture proofness.
Babayan et al. does not disclose the sum of the thicknesses of the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer is less than or equal to 200 microns.
Capps et al. teaches the sum of the thicknesses of the first bonding layer and the second bonding layer is 20 to 2000 microns (Paragraph 0055 – each bonding layer is 10 to 1000 microns). Capps et al. teaches that there is a desired for improved environmental protection configurations for solar cells (Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the sum of the thickness of the first and second bonding layer as disclosed by Capps et al. in modified Kim as there is a desired for improved environmental protection configurations for solar cells.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Metin et al. (US 2012/0318318 A1) in view of Capps et al. (US 2007/0295389 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 12, Kim, Maimon et al., and Metin et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Modified Kim does not disclose that the material of the tarpaulin comprises inorganic fibers or organic fibers.
Capps et al. discloses materials for tarpaulins (Paragraph 0142) can comprise inorganic and organic fibers whose value or quality depends on several factors such as whether its clean, smooth, fine, or coarse, and whether hard, soft, or medium twisted (Paragraph 0141). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the material of the tarpaulin comprises inorganic fibers or organic fibers when its desired to have lean, smooth, fine, or coarse, and whether hard, soft, or medium twisted material.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Babayan et al. (US 2017/0288081 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 12, Kim, Maimon et al., and Babayan et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Modified Kim does not disclose that the material of the tarpaulin comprises inorganic fibers or organic fibers.
Capps et al. discloses materials for tarpaulins (Paragraph 0142) can comprise inorganic and organic fibers whose value or quality depends on several factors such as whether its clean, smooth, fine, or coarse, and whether hard, soft, or medium twisted (Paragraph 0141). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the material of the tarpaulin comprises inorganic fibers or organic fibers when its desired to have lean, smooth, fine, or coarse, and whether hard, soft, or medium twisted material.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Venter (US 2022/0356726 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 14, Kim, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Kim does not disclose a curtain fixed to the second end of the tarpaulin, the reel, or the retractable bracket; and at least one additional flexible solar cell disposed on a surface of the decorative curtain, wherein when the tarpaulin is in the extended state or the retracted state, the at least one additional flexible solar cell further form a third photoelectric conversion area exposed to the external environment.
Venter disclose a “curtain” fixed to a second end of a tarpaulin (Figure 5, #145) in that it is an extension of the awning sheet that can be dropped down (Paragraph 0080) and that the awning sheet can comprise flexible solar cell devices wherein the maximum extension length of the awning and thus extension is dependent on the application (Figure 2, #126 & Paragraph 0063), wherein this curtain would form a third photoelectric conversion area that is configured to be exposed to the external environment via the “drop down” feature. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt a configuration in Kim where “a curtain” as taught by Venter is fixed to a second end of the tarpaulin that comprises additional flexible solar cells disposed on said surface of the curtain, for the advantage of being able to produce more power if an application depends on it.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Venter (US 2022/0356726 A1) in view of in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 15, Kim, Maimon et al., and Venter are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Venter was relied upon above to disclose why it would be obvious to include additional flexible solar cells thus include a plurality of additional flexible solar cell forming a third photoelectric conversion area on the extension of the awning. Venter discloses that the additional “curtain” is orthogonal to the awning (Figure 5, #145 the extension to the awning is orthogonal to the awning main surface), thus the plurality of additional flexible solar cells would be arranged along a third direction (Figure 5, #145 lengthwise) and a fourth direction perpendicular to the third direction (Figure 5, #145 height wise direction). Venter discloses that the number of flexible solar cells is dependent on the application and thus one of ordinary skill in the art incorporating the “curtain” of Venter into Kim would arrive at additional “strings” of Kim arranged on the curtain such that additional flexible solar cells adjacent in the third direction of the plurality of additional flexible solar cells are connected to each other each other to form additional solar cell modules, and the additional solar cell modules adjacent in the fourth direction are connected to each other.
Modified Kim is silent on the arrangement of if the additional flexible solar cells are connected in series and parallel.
Maimon et al. discloses that individual cells are electrically connected in series and parallel in order to teach a desired current and voltage of the film/module (Paragraph 0134). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Kim’s additional flexible solar cells to be connected in series and parallel for the advantages of having a desired current and voltage in the at least one solar module. In regards specifically to the phrase, “at least one wire”, wires would be inherently present to form such connections.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Metin et al. (US 2012/0318318 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 19, Kim, and Maimon et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 18. Kim discloses dividing the plurality of solar cells into a plurality of groups and connecting the flexible solar cells in each group to form each of a plurality of solar cell modules (Figs 4a-5b, the strings of #40 forma plurality of solar cell modules) and arranging the plurality of flexible solar cells on at least one surface of the tarpaulin comprises arranged the plurality of solar cell modules along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See Annotated Kim Figure 3, below for directions).
Kim does not disclose that the flexible solar cells are each encapsulating through a back sheet and a front sheet to form a plurality of solar cell modules.
Metin et al. teaches a back sheet and a front sheet stacked with each other (Figure 2B, #60A & #60B), wherein a plurality of flexible solar cells are encapsulated between the back sheet and the front sheet (Figure 2B, # 52 & Paragraph 0012-0013). Metin et al. discloses that these types of solar cells have demonstrated the greatest potential for high performance, high efficiency and are low-cost thin film PV products (Paragraph 0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a back sheet and a front sheet stacked with each other, wherein the plurality of solar cells are encapsulated between the back sheet and the front sheet for the advantages of using a solar cell that has demonstrated the greatest potential for high performance, high efficiency and are low cost thin film PV products.
Annotated Kim Figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
563
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101947401 B1) in view of Maimon et al. (US 2024/0332440 A1) in view of Metin et al. (US 2012/0318318 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2019/0296166 A1). Kim is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 20, Kim, and Maimon et al., are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 18. Modified Kim does not disclose the back sheet is laminated on the tarpaulin by thermal fusing.
Huang et al. discloses a backsheet that is laminated on a tarpaulin by thermal fusing (Paragraph 0067-0069). Huang et al. discloses that this configuration is easier to cut or otherwise shape to fit solar cell modules into available installation areas and may be positioned directly onto supporting surfaces without any intermediate mounting hardware (Paragraph 0021). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the back sheet be laminated on the tarpaulin by thermal fusing as disclosed by Huang in modified Kim for the advantages of having an easier step to cut or otherwise shape to fit solar cell modules into available installation areas and may be positioned directly onto supporting surfaces without any intermediate mounting hardware.
Annotated Kim Figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
563
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 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