DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/644,708, filed on 04/24/2024, which claims priority to provisional application number 63/461,791, filed on 04/25/2023.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 03/09/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 13, 16-24, 26, 42, and 43 are pending.
Claim 26 is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 13, 16-24, 42, and 43 are rejected.
The Office’s objections to claim 23 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.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 03/09/2026 have been carefully considered but they are moot in light of the Office’s new ground of rejection.
The examiner understands the newly added limitation “the plurality of prismatic structures operative to reduce deformation of the deposited ultraviolet rejection film” to be supported by paragraph 0012 of the specification as originally filed on 04/24/2024.
The examiner reviewed the applicant’s citation to MPEP 2131.03 (anticipation of range) and makes clear below that the combination of references in the rejection of claim 1 is based on obviousness, and the examiner cites to MPEP 2144.05 (obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges) and also finds no criticality of this claimed range according to the applicant’s originally-filed disclosure.
The examiner does not reject new claim 42 with prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Written Description - New Matter
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 13, 16-24, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The applicant’s newly recited range of 2-200 micrometers is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. Citations to two examples having characteristic dimension values of 3 micrometers and 175 micrometers does not entitle the applicant to an expanded range of 2-200 micrometers. In paragraph 0034 of the specification as originally filed, the applicant writes that “the characteristic dimension can be a height of the prismatic structures” and “the height of each of the prismatic structures…can be in a range from approximately 1 micrometers to approximately 100 micrometers.” At most, the applicant possesses written description for a range of 1-175 micrometers. The applicant presents no compelling reasoning or explanation why it is possession of a broader range with larger values.
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 1-8, 11-13, 16-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’NEILL (US 4711972) in view of BRUDER (US 2012/0279566 A1) and SAMUELS (US 2015/0285959 A1).
Regarding claim 1, O’NEILL teaches a solar sheet configured for space-based applications, comprising:
a plurality of thin film solar cells (photovoltaic cell 37 is thin, and thinner than its coversheet);
a flexible polymer coversheet formed of silicone (O’NEILL, abstract, explains to use flexible silicone polymer) overlaying a light receiving surface of the plurality of thin film solar cells, a bottom surface of the flexible polymer coversheet faces the plurality of thin film solar cells, a top surface of the flexible polymer coversheet having texturing including a plurality of prismatic structures operative to recapture light that is initially reflected from the top surface of the flexible polymer coversheet (O’NEILL teaches that optically clear layer coversheet 49 is flexible and has prisms to redirect and recapture light; please observe how the prior art drawings illustrate exactly the same prism function).
PRIOR ART: O’NEILL
INSTANT DRAWINGS
PNG
media_image1.png
243
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
439
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
O’NEILL does not disclose expressly an ultraviolet rejection film deposited on the flexible polymer coversheet to protect the solar sheet from light degradation and chemical degradation, or that the texturing having a characteristic dimension of2 to 200 micrometers for each prismatic structure in the plurality of prismatic structures, the plurality of prismatic structures operative to reduce deformation of the deposited ultraviolet rejection film..
BRUDER teaches the addition of a longpass filter that rejects/absorbs UV light to protect its underlying solar components from degradation (para. 281, data shows that photovoltaic elements configured to have a longpass filter to block UV light from degrading the layers beneath the filter have improved lifetime performance). BRUDER also explains that the UV filter can be deposited/applied to the substrate holding the photovoltaic element (para. 267).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify O’NEILL and add an ultraviolet rejection film deposited on the flexible polymer coversheet to protect the solar sheet from light degradation and chemical degradation as taught by BRUDER.
Although O’NEILL’s Fig. 3 illustrates only one solar cell, the duplication of solar cells is of no patentable significance because skilled artisans would not anticipate that any new and unexpected result is produced. On the contrary, skilled artisans would expect that duplicating the solar cells would lead to the very simple outcome of more electricity produced. O’NEILL additionally describes embodiments of the flexible prismatic coversheet, thus establishing that solar sheets possessing pluralities of thin film solar cells was already well-known in the art.
SAMUELS teaches a polymer sheet overlaying a light receiving surface of the plurality of thin film solar cells, a bottom surface of the flexible polymer sheet faces the plurality of thin film solar cells and a top surface of the flexible polymer sheet forms an air-material interface of the solar sheet, the top surface having a plurality of prismatic structures operative to refract light towards the plurality of solar cells (Fig. 16 illustrates a polymer sheet on solar cells with top surface prismatic structures refracting light down to the cells).
SAMUELS, however, explains that the prism angle may be from about 5-85 degrees, but typically are selected be closer to about 45 degrees (para. 69). SAMUELS also explains that the size of the prism lens may vary broadly depending upon the nature of the application (para. 67). SAMUELS continues explaining that skilled artisans would find it preferable that the material of the prism lens “may be substantially completely transparent to the radiation being handled” (para. 70). SAMUELS also shows that light is collected even when it impinges the prisms at angles horizontal to its planar surface (i.e., 90 degrees) (Fig. 16 and paras. 82-83). If the prism layer is oriented perfectly horizontal to the Earth’s surface, then this 90-degree angle also would represent the sun’s zenith angle. SAMUEL’s various figures illustrate angles between negative 90 to positive 90 degrees, and that this light is preferably redirected using the prisms toward an intended target such as a solar cell for conversion into useful electrical power.
PNG
media_image3.png
293
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify O’NEILL and design the top surface of its polymer sheet to instead have a plurality of prismatic structure to refract light down towards the solar cells are taught by SAMUELS in order to capture light directed at incident angles (SAMUELS, para. 81), among other advantageous reasons of capturing as much light as possible and prevent waste of incident sunlight.
SAMUELS also teaches that (1) heights of prisms can be 0.1 micrometer to 1mm, para. 67, and thickness of optional prism substrate 46 can be 0.1nm to 100mm, or 1-20 mm, para. 73 in SAMUELS; thus all overlapping with the claimed range, (2) heights of prisms can be 0.1 micrometer to 1mm, SAMUELS, para. 67, overlaps with claimed range, (3) a sidewall angle of each prismatic structure is in a range from 15 to 75 degrees and 35-55 degrees (SAMUELS, para. 69, overlapping range), (4) a characteristic dimension of each prismatic structure in the plurality of prismatic structures is greater than a wavelength of incident light (heights of prisms can be 0.1 micrometer to 1mm, SAMUELS, para. 67, overlaps with claimed range).
The examiner finds that the sheet of the prior art is substantially identical to the sheet recited, and that skilled artisans would expect and desire the light collection efficiency of the sheet to exceed 90% because this would improve overall device performance. There are few other motivators more powerful that a desire to improve light collection efficiency, and skilled artisans would very much want to make the necessarily improvements to increase this efficiency value. Further, the examiner finds that the sheet of the prior art is substantially identical to the sheet recited, and that skilled artisans would expect and desire the transmissivity of the sheet to exceed 85% across the claimed wavelengths because this would improve overall device performance (and because O’NEILL remarks that the prism material may be substantially completely transparent to the radiation being handled). There are few other motivators more powerful that a desire to improve light collection efficiency via improvements in transmissivity of the front layer, and skilled artisans would very much want to make the necessarily improvements to increase this efficiency value. The examiner further asserts that the material disclosed by O’NEILL, when it is modified according to SAMUEL’s teachings, is disclosed by the applicant to satisfy the claimed optical performance requirements (e.g., transmissivity).
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).
Where SAMUELS does not disclose an example of a numerical value within the claimed range, the examiner asserts that the range is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. There is also no indication of any criticality of the value of the prisms’ characteristic dimension according to the applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 2, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, wherein the textured top surface includes a plurality of prismatic structures (O’NEILL, Fig. 3, e.g., illustrates six prismatic structures).
Regarding claim 3, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, wherein the flexible polymer coversheet overlays and encapsulates interconnects between thin film solar cells in the plurality of thin film solar cells (O’NEILL, Fig. 3 illustrates the recited limitation arrangement).
Regarding claim 4, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, wherein the flexible polymer coversheet encapsulates the light receiving surface of the plurality of thin film solar cells (O’NEILL, Fig. 3 illustrates the recited limitation arrangement).
Regarding claim 5, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, wherein the ultraviolet rejection film is a longpass optical filter with a cut-on wavelength in a range of 340 nanometers to 400 nanometers (BRUDER, Fig. 7, illustrates and establishes that useful UV rejection film longpass optical filters having cut wavelengths between 340-400nm, e.g., data line 210 below, with reduced transmission of light below these wavelength values).
PNG
media_image4.png
325
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 5, wherein the ultraviolet rejection film longpass optical filter reduces transmission of light at wavelengths below 350 nanometers (BRUDER, Fig. 7, illustrates and establishes that useful UV rejection film longpass optical filters having cut wavelengths between 340-400nm, e.g., data line 210 below, with reduced transmission of light below these wavelength values).
PNG
media_image4.png
325
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7, 8, 16-18, 20, and 22, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, where the SAMUELS references renders obvious each of these dependent limitations (see rejection of claim 1 above where the examiner explains how each limitation is obvious).
Regarding claim 11, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, wherein the flexible polymer coversheet is formed of silicone or Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (O’NEILL, abstract, explains to use flexible silicone polymer).
Regarding claim 12, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, wherein the plurality of prismatic structures includes inverted prism structures or prism structures that project outward from the top surface (O’NEILL, Fig. 3 illustrates the recited limitation arrangement).
Regarding claim 13, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 12, wherein each prism structure is a linear or curvilinear prism or each prismatic structure is a corner cube prism or each prism structure is a pyramidal prism (O’NEILL, Fig. 3 illustrates the recited limitation arrangement, linear prisms).
Claims 19, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’NEILL (US 4711972) in view of BRUDER (US 2012/0279566 A1) and SAMUELS (US 2015/0285959 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PAN (US 2017/0015430 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, but does not disclose expressly that a specific power of the solar coversheet is in a range from 300 W/kg to 1500 W/kg under AM0.
PAN teaches a solar sheet with a specific power range of 1020-3000 W/kg under AM0 (para. 28), and that this specific power range is useful for ensuring sufficient endurance for a UAV powered by the solar cell sheet.
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify O’NEILL and adjust the solar coversheet to have a specific power within the claimed range because values within this range are useful for ensuring sufficient endurance for a UAV powered by the solar cell sheet as taught by PAN (see also reasoning in PAN, para. 6).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, but does not disclose expressly an adhesive connecting the plurality of solar cells to the flexible polymer sheet (claim 23), made of a silicone-based pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (claim 24).
PAN teaches solar sheets include polymer cover layers, where a silicon-based PSA adhesive is used to connect together the components (pressure sensitive adhesive NT 1001, which is silicone-based, PAN, paras. 109-110).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify O’NEILL and add a silicone-based PSA because this allows attachment and bonding of the various layers, and is only a simple combination of known elements to achieve expected results. MPEP 2143. Using basic and known adhesives is a simple method of connecting together parts, practiced by nearly all persons, not just skilled artisans.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’NEILL (US 4711972) in view of BRUDER (US 2012/0279566 A1) and SAMUELS (US 2015/0285959 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ATWATER (US 2016/0056321 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified O’NEILL teaches the solar sheet of claim 1, but does not disclose expressly that the flexible polymer sheet can be flexed in two dimensions to a bend radius in a range of 1-2 inches.
ATWATER teaches that flexible solar cells and modules effective for advanced aerospace applications, where a panel should have a minimum bend radius of 10 centimeters, and comments about the effect of layer dimensions in both an X and a Y axis (paras. 108 and 110). ATWATER recognizes the importance of flexibility and bending capability in aerospace applications, and further explains that the configuration and shape of elements should be arranged however is necessary to accomplish the design and application objectives (para. 109).
PNG
media_image5.png
171
427
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify O’NEILL and adjust the bend radius of the flexible polymer sheet to 1-2 inches because ATWATER teaches that the solar cell modules (and thus all of the comprising layers) must be selected in order to meet payload and space constraints generally (para. 102). Skilled artisans would clearly understand that a high degree of flexibility is extremely desirable for aerospace applications where space is limited and weight is a serious design and performance factor. Though ATWATER only describes an example of a 10 cm bend radius, skilled artisans would immediately realize the obviousness of selecting other bend radii as required to meet the minimum requirement for a particular aerospace application, and would find it obvious to adjust as necessary the bend radius requirement when needed, including to values of 1-2 inches. The examiner finds convincing evidence that ATWATER’s disclosure would enable skilled artisans to understand that smaller bend radii would be relatively easy to accomplish if desired because a relatively smaller bend radius such as 1-2 inches requires a less demanding configuration and choice of materials. In general, greater bend radii require a greater consideration of design features so that the various components of the module do not fracture or become compromised.
Further, changing a bend radius from 10cm to 1-2 inches is only an obvious change in size and dimension, and the modification would not cause any significant unexpected or surprising result in performance or operation. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
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