Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/574,314

SLAT FOR SOLAR CELL AND SOLAR CELL BLIND

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 27, 2023
Examiner
SHABLACK, JOHNNIE A
Art Unit
3634
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kyocera Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allow Rate
648 granted / 1000 resolved
+12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1029
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
40.3%
+0.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1000 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lund-Hansen (US 6,384,314). Regarding claim 1, Lund-Hansen discloses a slat for a solar cell, the slat comprising: a plate-like slat body (8), Fig 1) including a first surface (top surface), a second surface (bottom surface) opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface (between the first and second side surfaces); a plate-like solar cell unit (10) fixed to the plate-like slat body; and a connection box (16) including a conductor (flat conductors), a housing (enclosing conductors), and a cable (20), the plate-like slat body (10) having a longitudinal direction being a first direction along the first surface (Fig 1), the plate-like solar cell unit (10) including a third surface (bottom surface of 10) on the first surface (top surface of the slat body), a fourth surface (top surface of 10) opposite to the third surface, and a second side surface (vertical edge) connecting the third surface and the fourth surface, the plate-like solar cell unit (10) having a longitudinal direction being the first direction (Fig 1), the conductor (16) being connected to a wire (40) connected to an electrode (28) in the plate-like solar cell unit (Fig 4), the housing accommodating the conductor and being along at least one of the first side surface or the second side surface (Figs 3, 5, 7, and 8), the cable (20) being electrically connected to the conductor (16) and protruding from inside the housing to outside the housing (via 14). Regarding claim 2, wherein the first side surface is at an end of the plate-like slat body (8) in the first direction, and the second side surface is at an end of the plate-like solar cell unit (10) in the first direction (Fig 3). Regarding claim 3, wherein the plate-like solar cell unit includes a first portion along the plate-like slat body (main body of solar cell 10) and a second portion protruding from the plate-like slat body in the first direction (protrusion over 28 and 30, shown in Fig 5), and the housing is along a first area including a surface of the second portion in the third surface and along the first side surface (housing overlaps the second portion, see Figs 5 and 7). Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishiguro (JP 2008-7934 A). Regarding claim 1, Ishiguro discloses a slat for a solar cell (Figs 2 and 3), the slat comprising: a plate-like slat body (2) including a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a first side surface; a plate-like solar cell unit (3) fixed to the plate-like slat body; and a connection box including a conductor (4), a housing (35), and a cable (41 of 4 with 35 have a wiring cable), the plate-like slat body (2) having a longitudinal direction being a first direction along the first surface, the plate-like solar cell unit including a third surface on the first surface, a fourth surface opposite to the third surface, and a second side surface connecting the third surface and the fourth surface (Figs 1-3), the plate-like solar cell unit having a longitudinal direction being the first direction, the conductor being connected to a wire connected to an electrode in the plate-like solar cell unit, the housing accommodating the conductor and being along at least one of the first side surface or the second side surface (Figs 2 and 4), the cable being electrically connected to the conductor and protruding from inside the housing to outside the housing (Fig 1). Regarding claim 2, wherein the first side surface is at an end of the plate-like slat body in the first direction, and the second side surface is at an end of the plate-like solar cell unit in the first direction (Figs 2 and 3). Regarding claim 4, wherein the plate-like slat body includes a third portion along the plate-like solar cell unit and a fourth portion protruding from the plate-like solar cell unit in the first direction, the third surface is along a second area including a surface of the third portion in the first surface, and the housing is along a third area including at least a part of a surface of the fourth portion in the first surface and along the second side surface (Figs 2 and 3). Regarding claim 6, wherein the plate-like slat body includes a recess or a groove receiving the plate-like solar cell unit on the first surface (evident in Fig 2). Regarding claim 7, wherein the plate-like slat body has a lateral direction being a third direction along the first surface and orthogonal to the first direction, the plate-like solar cell unit has a lateral direction being the third direction, the plate-like slat body includes a thin plate member (Fig 2), the thin plate member includes a first plate portion and at least one of a second plate portion or a third plate portion, the first plate portion is along the third surface, the second plate portion is connected to an end of the first plate portion in the third direction and is along a side surface of the plate-like solar cell unit in the third direction, and the third plate portion is connected to an end of the first plate portion in a fourth direction opposite to the third direction and is along a side surface of the plate-like solar cell unit in the fourth direction (Figs 2 and 3). Regarding claim 8, wherein the thin plate member includes the second plate portion and the third plate portion (Figs 2 and 3). Regarding claim 10, Ishiguro discloses a solar cell blind, comprising: a plurality of the slats according to claim 1, the plurality of slats being arranged in a fifth direction perpendicular to the first direction (Fig 1). PNG media_image1.png 334 318 media_image1.png Greyscale 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiguru, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Fuji (JP 2004-027661). Regarding claim 9, although Ishiguru fails to teach wherein the plate-like slat body has a lateral direction being a third direction along the first surface and orthogonal to the first direction, the plate-like solar cell unit has a lateral direction being the third direction, the first side surface is at an end of the plate-like slat body in the third direction or at an end of the plate-like slat body in a fourth direction opposite to the third direction, and the second side surface is at an end of the plate-like solar cell unit in the third direction or at an end of the plate-like solar in the fourth direction, Fuji teaches such configuration so that both ends of the solar cell (11) have a portion to coincide with ends of the slat (21), therefore it would have been obvious to modify Ishiguru with the configuration claimed since such modification involves mere design change. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Ishiguru in view of Fuji since such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday. 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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. /Johnnie A. Shablack/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584350
Light-adjustable shade
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571252
VALANCE ASSEMBLY AND RELATED COVERINGS FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571253
WIRING STRUCTURE OF TENSION MEMBER IN SCREEN APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571248
Segmented Closure System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565745
ARTICULATING EXPANDABLE BARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.7%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1000 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month