DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Specie I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hikosaka et al. (US 2006/0219291 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hikosaka discloses a solar panel (photovoltaic module 1, figures 1-3 and 8), comprising:
a frame (outer frame 20, figure 1 or 3) having an accommodation opening (see figure 1 or 3) ([0063]);
a front plate (bottom portion of transparent sealing resin 14 that is below the solar cell 11, figure 2; or EVA sheet 14a as shown in figure 8) located at one of two opposite sides (bottom side) of the frame (20) (see figure 2 or 8, [0063-0064], [0079]);
a back plate (top portion of transparent sealing resin 14 that is above the solar cell 11, figure 2; or EVA sheet 14b as shown in figure 8) located at another one of the two opposite sides (top side) of the frame (20) (see figure 2 or 8, [0063-0064] and [0079]); and
a cell (solar cell 11) (figure 2 or 8, [0063] and [0079]), wherein the accommodation opening is enclosed by the front plate (14a), the back plate (14b), and the frame (20) to form an enclosed space (see figure 1 or 3), the cell (11) being disposed in the enclosed space (see figure 1 or 3).
Regarding claim 2, Hikosaka further discloses that the frame (20) is a rigid frame having the accommodation opening (frame made of sturdy material such as aluminum, [0063]); the cell (11) is a cell layer (solar cell 11) disposed at the accommodation opening (see figure 1 or 3); the front plate (14a) is a front plate layer (14a) located at a side (bottom side) of the cell layer (11); and the back plate (14b) is a back plate layer (14b) located at an opposite side (top side) of the cell layer (11) (see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Hikosaka further discloses that the rigid frame is made of metal material such as aluminum ([0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Hikosaka further discloses that the rigid frame (20) has a thickness greater than or equal to a thickness of the cell layer (11) (see fig. 12 that shows frame 20 has higher depth or thickness).
Regarding claim 5, Hikosaka further discloses that a front film layer (light receiving side light transmitting insulating substrate 12) arranged on a side (bottom side) of the front plate layer (14a) away from the cell layer (11); and a back film layer (rear surface side light transmitting insulating substrate 13) arranged on a side (top side) of the back plate layer (14b) away from cell layer (11) (see fig. 2 or 8, [0063] and [0079])).
Regarding claim 6, Hikosaka further discloses that the cell layer comprises a plurality of double-sided crystalline silicon chips (11) (see figure 2 or 8, [0063] and [00633]); and each of the front plate layer (14a), the back plate layer (14b), the front film layer (12), and the back film layer (13) has a transparent structure (EVA sheets 14a and 14b and glass substrates 12 and 13 are transparent, [0113]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikosaka as applied above, and further in view of Green et al. (US 2020/0403567 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hikosaka further discloses each of the front film layer (12) and the back film layer (13) is made of glass ([0113]). However, Hikosaka does not disclose that each of the front film layer (12) and the back film layer (13) has a rough surface formed through high-temperature physical embossing, the rough surface serving as a light trapping structure and being capable of protecting an inner layer structure and assisting in limiting the cell layer (11).
Green discloses a photovoltaic panel (100, fig. 1-4) wherein front (106) and rear (108) substrates are made of glass and are macro-textured ([0044]) to have reduce reflection ([0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have macro-textured structure as taught Green on the top and bottom glass substrates of Hikosaka such that the reflection of incident light is reduced, as shown by Green.
Since each of the front film layer (12) and the back film layer (13) of Hikosaka as modified by Green has textured structure or rough surface as in the case of the instant application, it would serve as a light trapping structure and being capable of protecting an inner layer structure and assisting in limiting the cell layer, as in the case of the instant application.
The limitation to "high temperature physical embossing" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[E]ven 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." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the rough or textured surface of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights