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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9, 12-13, 17 and 20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 appear to be missing a comma (,). For proper form, it is suggested that claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 be amended shown in, for example, claim 2 below.
2. The vehicle body part according to claim 1, wherein the barrier layer is electrically insulating.
Appropriate correction 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 1-20 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
The claim recites the limitation “a barrier layer formed on at least a portion of the surface” in line 4. However, there is no prior recitation of “a” surface in the claim. Accordingly, the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
The claim recites the limitation “at least one area of a barrier layer” in line 4 and further recites “directly on an area of the barrier layer” in lines 6-7. It is not clear if the area recited in lines 6-7 corresponds to the at least one area of a barrier layer recited in line 4.
Regarding claims 2 and 3
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 4
The limitation “a plurality of photovoltaic elements formed directly on an area of the barrier layer” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “an area of the barrier layer” recited in the instant claim corresponds to the “at least one area of a barrier layer” recited in claim 1 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate areas.
Furthermore, the claim recites “a plurality of photovoltaic elements”. It is not clear if the plurality of photovoltaic elements corresponds to the at least one integrated photovoltaic element of claim 1 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate photovoltaic elements.
As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 5
The limitation “wherein there are a plurality of areas of barrier layer on the surface of the body part, and at least one photovoltaic element on each area” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the plurality of areas recited in the instant claim corresponds to the “at least one area of a barrier layer” recited in claim 1 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate areas. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 6
The limitation “wherein each photovoltaic element comprises a plurality of layers” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the recited “each photovoltaic element” corresponds to the at least one integrated photovoltaic element of claim 1 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate photovoltaic elements. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 7
The limitation “portions of the photovoltaic elements” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the recited “photovoltaic elements” corresponds to the at least one integrated photovoltaic element of claim 1 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate photovoltaic elements. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 8
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the vehicle part”. While claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, recites “a vehicle body part” and “a body part”, there is no antecedent basis for “a vehicle part”.
Regarding claim 9
The limitation “[a] vehicle having at least one body part with at least one integrated photovoltaic element, the part comprising: a body part” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. While the claim initially recites at least one body part, the recitation “the part” lacks clear, explicit antecedent basis. It is suggested that the term be used consistently throughout the claim. Furthermore, the claim subsequently recites the limitation “a body part” in line 3. The limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if the limitation refers to the previously recited “at least one body part” or to a further/different body part. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill cannot reasonably be apprised of the scope of the claim.
The limitation “a barrier layer formed on at least a portion of the surface” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. There is no prior recitation of “a” surface in the claim. Accordingly, the limitation lacks antecedent basis.
The limitation “at least one area barrier layer disposed formed on…” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “disposed formed on” is unclear as it recites two different and inconsistent relationships. It is not clear whether the barrier layer is formed on the surface or merely disposed.
The limitation “at leas one photovoltaic element disposed over formed directly…” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “disposed over formed directly” is unclear because of the inconsistent terminologies recited. Accordingly, the positional relationship between the photovoltaic element and the barrier layer is unclear.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 16
Claims 10, 11 and 16 are rejected for their dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 12
The limitation “a plurality of photovoltaic elements formed directly on an area of barrier layer” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “an area of the barrier layer” recited in the instant claim corresponds to the “at least one area of a barrier layer” recited in claim 9 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate areas. Furthermore, the claim recites “a plurality of photovoltaic elements”. It is not clear if the plurality of photovoltaic elements corresponds to the at least one photovoltaic element of claim 9 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate photovoltaic elements. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 13
The limitation “wherein there are a plurality of areas of barrier layer on the surface of the body part, and at least one photovoltaic element formed directly on each area of barrier layer” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the plurality of areas recited in the instant claim corresponds to the “at least one area of a barrier layer” recited in claim 9 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate areas. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 14
The limitation “wherein each photovoltaic element comprises a plurality of layers” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the recited “each photovoltaic element” corresponds to the at least one photovoltaic element of claim 9 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate photovoltaic elements. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 15
The limitation “portions of the photovoltaic elements” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the recited “photovoltaic elements” corresponds to the at least one photovoltaic element of claim 9 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate photovoltaic elements. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 17
The limitation “the surface” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. There is no prior recitation of “a” surface in the claim.
The limitation “applying at least one photovoltaic element directly over an area of the barrier layer” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear if “an area” corresponds to the “at least one area of a barrier layer” or if the limitation refers to additional, separate areas. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
The limitation “applying a protective layer over the surface of the photovoltaic element” is unclear as there is not prior recitation of “a surface of the photovoltaic element”. Accordingly, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, for proper form and consistency in the claim, it is suggested that the limitation “the photovoltaic element” be amended to read “the at least one photovoltaic element”.
For purposes of examination on the merits, the limitation will be treated as “applying a protective layer over a surface of the at least one photovoltaic element.”
Regarding the limitation “painting the surface of the part”, it is suggested that the limitation be amended to read “painting the surface of the vehicle body part”.
Regarding claim 18
The limitation “including the painted surfaces and the photovoltaic elements” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. While claim 17 recites “painting the surface of the part”, there is no prior recitation of “painted surfaces” or of more than one surface being painted. Therefore, one of ordinary skill could not reasonably ascertain what surface do the “painted surfaces” recited in the instant claim correspond to i.e., the painted surface of claim 17 or a different surface.
The limitation “the photovoltaic elements” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the “photovoltaic elements” recited in the instant claim corresponds to the at least one photovoltaic element of claim 17 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate photovoltaic elements. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Regarding claim 19
Claim 19 is rejected for its dependency on claim 17. Regarding claim 20
The limitation “a plurality of photovoltaic elements are formed directly on an area of the barrier layer” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “an area of the barrier layer” recited in the instant claim corresponds to the “at least one area of a barrier layer” recited in claim 17 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate areas.
Furthermore, the claim recites “a plurality of photovoltaic elements”. It is not clear if the plurality of photovoltaic elements corresponds to the at least one photovoltaic element of claim 17 or if the limitation refers to additional, separate photovoltaic elements. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably ascertained.
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(s) 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0226312, Böhm et al. in view of US 2006/0037641 A1, Kibbel et al.*
*Previously cited.
Regarding claims 1 and 9
Böhm teaches a vehicle body part (corresponding to a vehicle surface component such as, for example, roofs, hoods, doors, fenders, etc.) having at least one integrated photovoltaic element (see solar cells 16) [Figs. 8 and 17, paras. 0028, 0056 and 0081], the vehicle body part comprising:
a body part (corresponding to the vehicle surface component) [Fig. 17, paras. 0028, 0056 and 0081];
at least one integrated photovoltaic element (corresponding to solar cells 16) formed on an area of the body part (see, for example, roof 4) [Figs. 8 and 17, paras. 0056, 0070 and 0081]; and
a layer of paint (corresponding to edge areas 33 which may be painted in the color of the car OR to the paint of the vehicle body part) covering only the portions of the surface of the body part (e.g., roof 4) surrounding the at least one photovoltaic element (16), leaving the at least one photovoltaic element (16) uncovered by the paint layer (the photovoltaic cells 16 are exposed) [Figs. 8 and 17, paras. 0070 and 0081].
Regarding the limitations “at least one area of a barrier layer formed on at least a portion of the surface of the body part” and “where the at least one integrated photovoltaic element is formed directly on an area of the barrier layer”, Böhm teaches a carrying layer comprising a plastic component made of, e.g., polyamide, formed on at least a portion of the surface of the body part [Figs. 7 and 8, paras. 0015-0017 and 0066], where the at least one integrated photovoltaic element (16) is formed directly on an area of the barrier layer (carrying layer) [Figs. 7-8, paras. 0015-0017 and 0066]. Said carrying layer reading on the claimed “at least one area of a barrier layer” as it is disclosed to comprise insulating materials such as polyamide [paras. 0016, 0101 and 0153].
If the above is found insufficient with regards to the limitations “at least one area of a barrier layer formed on at least a portion of the surface of the body part” and “where the at least one integrated photovoltaic element is formed directly on an area of the barrier layer”, Kibbel is cited below.
Kibbel teaches at least one area of a barrier layer (corresponding to polyimide layer 3) formed on at least a portion of the surface of a body part (corresponding to carrier 2 made of a bodywork metal sheet comprising steel),
wherein a photovoltaic element (layers 4-7) is formed directly on an area of the barrier layer (3) such that electrical insulation and mechanical and chemical encapsulation of the photovoltaic element (layers 4-7) is achieved [Fig. 1, paras. 0013 and 0022].
Böhm and Kibbel are analogous inventions in the field of vehicle body parts comprising photovoltaic elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vehicle body part of Böhm to comprise at least one area of a barrier layer formed on at least a portion of the surface of the body part and to have positioned the photovoltaic element directly on said area of the barrier layer, as disclosed in Kibbel, for the purpose of providing electrical insulation and mechanical and chemical encapsulation of the photovoltaic element.
Regarding claims 2 and 10
Modified Böhm teaches the vehicle and vehicle body part as set forth above, wherein the barrier layer on the body part is electrically insulating (the barrier layer comprises, e.g., polyimide) [Kibbel, para. 0022]
Regarding claims 4 and 12
Modified Böhm teaches the vehicle and vehicle body part as set forth above, wherein there are a plurality of photovoltaic elements (16) disposed on an area of the barrier layer [Böhm, Figs. 8 and 17, paras. 0070 and 0081].
Regarding claims 5 and 13
Modified Böhm teaches the vehicle and vehicle body part as set forth above, wherein there are a plurality of areas of barrier layer (corresponding to areas directly below each solar cell 16) on the surface of the body part (e.g., roof 4), and at least one photovoltaic element (16) formed on each area of the barrier layer (the polyimide layer is arranged between the solar cells 16 and the carrier made of metal, thereby meeting with the limitations of the claim) [Kibbel, para. 0022; Böhm, Figs. 8 and 17, paras. 0070 and 0081].
Regarding claims 6 and 14
Modified Böhm teaches the vehicle and vehicle body part as set forth above, wherein each photovoltaic element comprises a plurality of layers [Böhm, Fig. 19, paras.0151].
Regarding claims 7 and 15
Modified Böhm teaches the vehicle and vehicle body part as set forth above, further comprising a network of conductive traces (see cell connectors 104) interconnecting portions of the photovoltaic elements [Böhm, Figs. 17 and 19, para. 0083].
Regarding claims 8 and 16
Modified Böhm teaches the vehicle and vehicle body part as set forth above, wherein the vehicle part is at least one of a trunk lid, a hood, a roof, a door panel, and a fender [Böhm, paras. 0056-0058 and Fig. 17].
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0226312, Böhm et al. in view of US 2006/0037641 A1, Kibbel et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-16 above, and further in view of US 2015/0107647 A1, Nakamura.
Regarding claims 3 and 11
Modified Böhm does not teach the barrier layer on the body part comprising enamel.
Nakamura shows that enamel is a known insulating material and functionally equivalent to polyimide [para. 0067].
Modified Böhm and Nakamura are analogous in the field of insulating materials for use with photovoltaic elements. Because Nakamura teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable insulating materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143].
Further, because enamel and polyimide were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute polyimide for enamel [MPEP 2144.06].
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0226312, Böhm et al. in view of US 2019/0388932 A1, Huttenlocher and US 2006/0037641 A1, Kibbel et al.
Regarding claim 17
Böhm teaches a method of making a vehicle body part (corresponding to a vehicle surface component such as, for example, roofs, hoods, doors, fenders, etc.) having at least one integrated photovoltaic element (see solar cells 16) [Figs. 8 and 17, paras. 0028, 0056 and 0081], the method comprising:
applying at least one area of a barrier layer (corresponding to carrying layer comprising a plastic component) on at least a portion of the surface of the body part [Figs. 7 and 8, paras. 0015-0017 and 0066],
applying at least one photovoltaic element (16) directly over an area of the barrier layer (carrying layer) [Figs. 7-8, para. 0066];
painting the surface of the part (outer skin 14 at free peripheral regions 33 is painted in the color of the cat) [Figs. 8 and 17, paras. 0070 and 0081],
wherein portions of the surface of the body part (roof) surround the at least one photovoltaic element (16) are covered in paint [paras. 0077 and 0081].
Böhm does not teach a step of applying a protective layer over the surface of the photovoltaic element; and removing the protective layer to expose the surface of the at least one photovoltaic element.
Huttenlocher teaches a method for painting a vehicle part, wherein areas/regions that are not intended to be painted are covered with a protective layer in order to protect said areas from contamination during the painting step [paras. 0011, 0017 and 0048]. Said protective layer is further removed after the painting process is complete [paras. 0011, 0017 and 0048].
Böhm and Huttenlocher are analogous inventions in the field of painted vehicle parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Böhm to comprise the steps of applying a protective layer over the surface of the photovoltaic element and removing the protective layer to expose the surface of the photovoltaic element, as the application and subsequent removal of protective layers during painting of vehicle parts is common in the art and for the purpose of protecting the photovoltaic region from contamination during the painting of the edge regions of the part.
If the above is found insufficient with regards to the limitations “applying at least one area of a barrier layer on at least a portion of the surface of the body part” and “applying at least one photovoltaic element directly over an area of the barrier layer”, Kibbel is cited below.
Kibbel teaches applying at least one area of a barrier layer (corresponding to polyimide layer 3) on at least a portion of a surface of a body part (corresponding to carrier 2 made of a bodywork metal sheet comprising steel), wherein a photovoltaic element (layers 4-7) is formed directly on an area of the barrier layer (3) such that electrical insulation and mechanical and chemical encapsulation of the photovoltaic element (layers 4-7) is achieved [Fig. 1, paras. 0013 and 0022].
Böhm and Kibbel are analogous inventions in the field of vehicle body parts comprising photovoltaic elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Böhm to comprise a step of applying at least one area of a barrier layer on at least a portion of the surface of the body part and to have positioned the photovoltaic element directly on said area of the barrier layer, as disclosed in Kibbel, for the purpose of providing electrical insulation and mechanical and chemical encapsulation of the photovoltaic element.
Regarding claim 18
Modified Böhm teaches the method as set forth above, further comprising the step of applying a protective coating over the surface of the body part (the vehicle surface component has a transparent covering formed by a covering film or a thin glass plate) [paras. 0021, 0066 and 0101], including the painted surfaces (33) and the photovoltaic elements (the covering film can cover the entire vehicle surface component) [Böhm, paras. 0021, 0066 and 0101].
Regarding claim 19
Modified Böhm teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the vehicle part is at least one of a trunk lid, a hood, a roof, a door panel, and a fender [Böhm, paras. 0056-0058 and Fig. 17].
Regarding claim 20
Modified Böhm teaches the method as set forth above, where a plurality of photovoltaic elements (16) are formed on an area of the barrier layer (carrying layer OR polyamide layer) [Böhm, paras. 0015-0017 and 0016; Kibbel, para. 0022], and further comprising the step of applying electrically conductive pathways (see cell connectors 104) to connect to the photovoltaic elements [Böhm, Figs. 17 and 19, para. 0083].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721