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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 as amended and new claim 49 as set forth in applicant’s response dated 15 December 2025 are presently under consideration. Claims 2-48 are cancelled by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the prior art grounds of rejection of record, and these grounds are thus withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the prior drawing objections and rejections of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Upon further search and consideration of applicant’s newly amended and presented claims, new art was uncovered and new grounds of rejection is set forth below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have raised new issues of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) recited below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “at least some of said bling gaps contain a filler…” where “bling” should correctly read “blind” . 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 and 49 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.
Claim 1 recites a metal foil, connected beneath the bottom-side covering layer, but claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for the recitation of “the bottom-side covering layer”. Claim 1 previously recites “a bottom-side covering unit that comprises at least one of: a bottom-side encapsulation layer, a bottom- side lamination layer”. It’s unclear if the recitation “the bottom-side covering layer” means to reference one of these layers or a different layer. As such, the scope of claim 1 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 49 recites wherein the PV cell comprises “a semiconductor body” and later recites “wherein said flexible and rollable PV cell is comprised of a single semiconductor substrate which is segmented into segments by said set of non-transcending gaps which are placed only at one side of the semiconductor body”. It’s unclear by these recitations if the “semiconductor body” and “single semiconductor substrate” are referencing the same claim element or are two separate semiconductor elements. As such, the scope of claim 49 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bende et al (WO 2015/012697A1) and further in view of Nishi (JP H07312434A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in further view of Frolov (US 2010/0233843).
Regarding claim 1 Bende discloses a Photovoltaic (PV) cell, comprising:
(a) a semiconductor wafer, having a top surface that is intended to face a light source, and having a bottom surface that is opposite to said top surface (Top of page 7, Fig. 1a see: 10 substrate 10 comprising a semiconductor body);
wherein the bottom surface of the semiconductor wafer is covered by a bottom-side covering unit that comprises at least one of: a bottom-side encapsulation layer, a bottom- side lamination layer (Page 6, Fig. 1a see: inner electrically isolating sheet 12a on bottom of substrate 10);
(b) a metal foil, connected beneath the bottom-side covering layer (Page 6, Fig. 1a see: first electrically conductive sheet 12 beneath inner electrically isolating sheet 12a);
wherein the metal foil is an internal and integral part of a solar cell stack of said PV cell (Abstract, top of page 4, Fig. 1a see: first electrically conductive sheet 12 is internal and thus integral to the stack of sheets laminated on the back side of the substrate 10 and forming the solar cell);
wherein the metal foil collects and transports PV-generated electric power from a plurality of regions of the PV cell (Pages 6-7, Figs. 1a and 2 see: first electrically conductive sheet 12 connected to a plurality of regions of the substrate 10 by electrical connection materials 18);
(c) a Metal Foil Protection Layer, that comprises one or more encapsulation layers or lamination layers, connected beneath said metal foil, to provide mechanical protection to said metal foil and said PV cell (Pages 6-7, Fig. 1a see: further electrically isolating sheets 16 and 17 provided behind first electrically conductive sheet 12).
Bende does not explicitly disclose wherein the top surface of the semiconductor wafer is covered by a top-side covering layer that comprises at least one of: a top-side encapsulation layer, a top-side lamination layer or wherein the PV cell is flexible and rollable; wherein the semiconductor wafer has blind gaps that penetrate into between 75 percent and 99 percent of a total thickness of the semiconductor wafer, and that do not penetrate into an entirety of the total thickness of the semiconductor wafer; wherein said blind gaps that penetrate into the semiconductor wafer increase flexibility and mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption of said PV cell; wherein at least some of said bling gaps contain a filler material having mechanical force absorption properties, which provides mechanical shock absorption properties to said PV cell.
Nishi teaches a solar cell which is flexible and rollable formed of a single semiconductor wafer having blind gaps that penetrate into between 75 percent and 99 percent of a total thickness of the semiconductor wafer, and that do not penetrate into an entirety of the total thickness of the semiconductor wafer (Nishi, Abstract, [0007]-[0009], Figs. 1-5 see: silicon semiconductor substrate 1 divided into sub regions by non-transcending nicks/notches 5 illustrated with a depth within the range of 75 percent and 99 percent of the thickness of the substrate 1) wherein said blind gaps that penetrate into the semiconductor wafer increase flexibility and mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption of said PV cell (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1 and thus improve mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption). Nishi further teaches the top surface of the semiconductor wafer is covered by a top-side covering layer that comprises at least one of: a top-side encapsulation layer, a top-side lamination layer (Nishi, [0008] Fig. 1 see: light transmitting resin 7 made of PET, which covers the light-receiving surface side of the substrate 1 and protects the surface of the substrate and/or thermoplastic resin filled around the substrate 1).
Nishi and Bende are combinable as they are directed to the field of solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Bende in view of Nishi such that the PV cell of Bende is flexible and rollable as in Nishi where the semiconductor wafer has blind gaps that penetrate into between 75 percent and 99 percent of a total thickness of the semiconductor wafer, and that do not penetrate into an entirety of the total thickness of the semiconductor wafer as in Nishi (Nishi, Abstract, [0007]-[0009], Figs. 1-5 see: silicon semiconductor substrate 1 divided into sub regions by non-transcending nicks/notches 5 illustrated with a depth within the range of 75 percent and 99 percent of the thickness of the substrate 1) wherein said blind gaps that penetrate into the semiconductor wafer increase flexibility and mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption of said PV cell as in Nishi (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1 and thus improve mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption) to provide the solar cell with increased flexibility allowing it to conform to curved surfaces and substrates as in Nishi (Nishi, Abstract, [0006], [0009], Fig. 3 see: nicks/notches 5 allow bending or flexing of semiconductor substrate 1) and to further provide the PV cell of Bende with a top-side covering layer that comprises at least one of: a top-side encapsulation layer, a top-side lamination layer that covers the top surface of the semiconductor wafer as in Nishi (Nishi, [0008] Fig. 1 see: light transmitting resin 7 made of PET, which covers the light-receiving surface side of the substrate 1 and protects the surface of the substrate and/or thermoplastic resin filled around the substrate 1) for providing top surface protection.
Nishi does not explicitly disclose where at least some of said bling gaps contain a filler material having mechanical force absorption properties, which provides mechanical shock absorption properties to said PV cell.
However, Frolov teaches PV cells with such filler materials provided in gaps of solar cells that are selected to provide additional flexibility and additional mechanical resilience to said flexible photovoltaic cell as Frolov teaches forming buffer layers between the PV cells and the stretchable substrate to facilitate reduction of stresses and/or strains on the PV cells (para [0058]) and teaches filling the grooves or trenches in the stretchable PV device 200 with flexible and resilient encapsulating material 308 (paras [0066]-[0068], Fig. 3).
Frolov and modified Bende are combinable as they are directed to the field of solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Bende in view of Frolov such that at least some of said bling gaps of modified Bende contain a filler material having mechanical force absorption properties, which provides mechanical shock absorption properties to said PV cell as in Frolov (paras [0058], [0066]-[0068], Fig. 3) as Frolov teaches such elastic or resilient encapsulating materials facilitate reduction of stresses and/or strains on the PV cell (paras [0058], [0066]-[0068], Fig. 3).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al (US 2014/0305504) and in further view of Frolov (US 2010/0233843)
Regarding claim 49 Masuda discloses a photovoltaic article, comprising:
a flexible and rollable photovoltaic cell having properties of mechanical impact absorption ([0044], deformable back surface electrode type solar cell 10, Figs. 2, 9), wherein the PV cell comprises:
a semiconductor body comprised at least partially of a semiconductor material with a formfactor including a top surface, a bottom surface, and at least one sidewall ([0027] Fig. 2 see: power generation layer 1 comprises a semiconductor substrate);
a set of non-transcending gaps within said semiconductor body of said semiconductor material ([0028] Fig. 2 see: power generation layer 1 includes grooves 7 which do not reach the front surface of the power generation layer),
wherein portions of semiconductor material on opposite sides of a respective non- transcending gap become movable relative to one another while a thin layer of said semiconductor body of said semiconductor material remains beneath said non-transcending gaps and is sufficiently thin to flex ([0028], [0044] Figs. 2, 9 see: plurality of equal volume regions 1a separated by grooves 7 are allowed to flex and deform relative to each other where about one-fourth of the layer thickness of the power generation layer 1 remains non-separated).
Further the claim 49 recitations “due to physical displacement dissipate mechanical stresses and absorb mechanical impacts applied to said semiconductor body”, “wherein said set of non-transcending gaps within said semiconductor body operates as crack propagation inhibitor” and “wherein said PV cell is flexible and rollable, and is freestanding and has enhanced properties of mechanical impact absorption due to having said set of non-transcending gaps in the semiconductor material” are directed to intended uses of the claimed photovoltaic article.
A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
The photovoltaic article of Matsuda includes grooves 7 which allow deformation and flexing/rolling of the power generation layer 1 ([0028], [0044] Figs. 2, 9) and due to this flexing and deformation (physical displacement) is thus considered fully capable of dissipating mechanical stresses and absorb mechanical impacts applied to said semiconductor body, thus also functioning as crack propagation inhibitors and allowing the PV cell to be flexible and rollable, and freestanding while enhancing is properties of mechanical impact absorption as claimed.
Matsuda further discloses wherein said flexible and rollable PV cell is comprised of a single semiconductor substrate which is segmented into segments by said set of non-transcending gaps which are placed only at one side of the semiconductor body ([0027]-[0028], [0044] Fig. 2 see: power generation layer 1 comprises a semiconductor substrate segmented into a plurality of equal volume regions 1a separated by grooves 7 that are allowed to flex and deform relative to each other).
Matsuda discloses wherein the flexible and rollable photovoltaic cell comprises a metal foil ([0030] Fig. 2 see: takeout electrodes 9 and interconnect layers 8 formed from Al) but does not explicitly disclose a topsheet and a backsheet, where the metal foil is laminated between the topsheet and the backsheet.
Frolov discloses a flexible and rollable solar cell provided with a topsheet and a backsheet, where a metal foil is laminated between the topsheet and the backsheet ([0045], [0066]-[0068] Fig. 3 see: stretchable PV device 300 formed with encapsulation 302 where substrate 102 including metal foil on PV cell 202 are provided between first and second coversheets 304, 306 in an encapsulating material 308). Frolov teaches this encapsulation provides protection while allowing the device to stretch or deform over a range of motion ([0066]-[0068]).
Frolov and Matsuda are combinable as they are directed to the field of solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Matsuda in view of Frolov such that it is further provided with a topsheet and a backsheet, where the metal foil is laminated between the topsheet and the backsheet as in Frolov ([0045], [0066]-[0068] Fig. 3 see: stretchable PV device 300 formed with encapsulation 302 where substrate 102 including metal foil on PV cell 202 are provided between first and second coversheets 304, 306 in an encapsulating material 308) as Frolov teaches this encapsulation provides protection while allowing the device to stretch or deform over a range of motion ([0066]-[0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 49 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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 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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726