DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/568,049, filed on 12/07/2023, which is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/022897, filed on 06/07/2022, and which claims foreign priority to JP 2021-095083, filed on 06/07/2021.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 02/05/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are currently pending.
Claim 6 is canceled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-5 and 7-17 are examined below.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, the Office has set forth a new ground of rejection.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 02/05/2026 have been carefully considered but they are moot in light of the Office’s new ground of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 2, 5, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RUMMENS (US 2012/0111407 A1).
Regarding claim 1, RUMMENS teaches a resin film for a current collector sheet to be used for a current collector sheet of a solar cell, the resin film for a current collector sheet (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a heat-resistant layer (main layer 11) and a sealing layer (adhesive tie layer 13a/b) placed on one surface side of the heat-resistant layer,
wherein the heat-resistant layer includes polypropylene resin (“mechanical FPP blends of PP (preferably random copolymer of propylene (RCP) with ethylene and possibly other olefins)”, para. 38); and
the heat-resistant layer further includes polyethylene based plastomer (“LLDPE (linear low density polyethylene) or VLDPE (very low density polyethylene) plastomers”, para. 38).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, RUMMENS teaches the resin film for a current collector sheet according to claim 1, wherein the heat-resistant layer includes a light stabilizer (layers further contain UV light stabilizers, para. 104).
Regarding claim 5, RUMMENS teaches the resin film for a current collector sheet according to claim 1
wherein the polypropylene resin is homopolypropylene resin (preferred candidate is homopolymer polypropylene, para. 45).
Regarding claim 8, RUMMENS teaches the resin film for a current collector sheet according to claim 7, wherein the polyolefin resin is polyethylene resin (adhesive tie layer of polyethylene partly cross-linked with silane, para. 76).
Regarding claim 9, RUMMENS teaches the resin film for a current collector sheet according to claim 8, wherein the sealing layer includes silane-modified polyethylene resin (adhesive tie layer of polyethylene partly cross-linked with silane, para. 76).
Regarding claim 10, RUMMENS teaches the current collector sheet to be used for a solar cell, the current collector sheet comprising: the resin film for a current collector sheet according to claim 1; and a wire placed on a sealing layer side surface of the resin film for a current collector sheet (wires extend between solar cells on the sealing layer side, Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
338
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, RUMMENS teaches the solar cell element with a current collector sheet comprising: the current collector sheet according to claim 10; and a solar cell element (solar cells 4) placed on a sealing layer side surface of the current collector sheet, and electrically connected to the wire (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, RUMMENS teaches the solar cell element with a current collector sheet according to claim 11, wherein the wire is in contact with the heat-resistant layer (wire indirectly contacts rear heat-resistant layer, Figs. 1-4, direct contact not required).
Regarding claim 15, RUMMENS teaches the solar cell comprising a transparent substrate, a first sealing material, the solar cell element with a current collector sheet according to claim 11, a second sealing material (2) and counter substrate (1) in this order.
Regarding claim 17, RUMMENS teaches the solar cell according to claim 15, wherein the solar cell is a solar cell module including a plurality of the solar cell elements with a current collector sheet (there are multiple solar cells 4).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3, 4, 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUMMENS (US 2012/0111407 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 7, RUMMENS teaches the resin film for a current collector sheet according to claim 1, but does not disclose expressly that a melting point of resin used for the heat-resistant layer is 80°C or more and 200°C or less (claim 3), a storage elastic modulus of the heat-resistant layer at 150°C is 0.1 MPa or more and 1.0 GPa or less (claim 4), or that the sealing layer includes polyolefin resin with a melting point of 80°C or more and 125°C or less (claim 7). However, the prior art teaches the use of the same materials as taught by the applicant, and the examiner concludes that the materials such as PP and PE would have substantially similar and comparable melting points and storage elastic moduli and be within, overlapping, and/or close enough to the claimed ranges to be prima facie obvious.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. It is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP 2112.01).
Since the examiner does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 16, RUMMENS teaches the solar cell according to claim 15, wherein content of an ultraviolet absorber in the first sealing material is 3.0% by mass or less (layers further contain UV light stabilizers, para. 104; less than 1.2% total in layers 1-2, paras. 169-170, within claimed range). Although RUMMENS does not teach an express range of an UV absorber, skilled artisans would understand that the ranges are adjustable and only need to be small amounts to perform properly, and would consider the claimed range prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The 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). The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights