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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/30/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because two copies of exactly the same IDS has been filed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 23-31 and 33 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 23 recites “the front side of the solar cell” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because only a front side of the colored solar cell or solar cell module had been previously recited, such that it is unclear if a particular solar cell from the solar cell module is being referenced or the intention is to reference the colored solar cell. Clarification is requested. Additionally, the claim also recites “solar cell module” in line 5, which also is unclear if it is referencing the previously mentioned colored solar cell module or a completely different solar cell module. Clarification is requested.
Claim 25 recites “the solar cell” in line 3, such that it is unclear which of the one or more solar cells, array of solar cells, colored solar cell or colored solar cell module is being referenced by the limitation. It appears the limitation is intended to be directed to “the colored solar cell”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the layer, sheet or film…is laminated to the transparent front cover in a first lamination step,” where claim 23 from which claim 31 depends upon already recites “the transparent front cover layer…comprises a layer, sheet or film according to claim 1”, such that it is unclear how the transparent front cover layer that encompasses the layer, sheet or film can further have the layer, sheet or film be laminated to the transparent front cover layer as recited in claim 31.
It appears that claim 31 is further defining the one or more lamination steps in claim 30. However, the way it is written is not clear that is the intention. The claim starts off further defining the layer, sheet or film and does not set forth the one or more lamination steps in claim 30 is being further defined. Clarification is requested.
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.
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, 4, 6-13, 18, 21-31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onozaki et al. (US 2020/0295705).
Regarding claim 1, Onozaki discloses a layer, sheet or film (fluorinated polymer 214A) comprising one or more effect pigments (light scattering particles such as pearl pigment; [0191]) and one or more light scattering additives (particles M; [0198]), the one or more effect pigments comprising a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials (it is disclosed the pearl pigment is composed of flaky particles comprising mica, glass, aluminum oxide or the like, the surface of which is covered with titanium dioxide, iron oxide or the like; [0192]) and optionally a post coating,
wherein the one or more light scattering additives are selected from organic or inorganic particles which are transparent or semi-transparent (glass beads, silica sand, sea sand or silica particles; [01098]), and
wherein the layer, sheet or film further comprises a polymer, sol-gel, polysilazane, glass or ceramic (fluoroolefin; [0073]), the polymer being selected from a polyolefins, a polyethylene or a copolymer thereof (ethylene/tetrafluoroethylene copolymer; [0080]).
Onozaki discloses the one or more light scattering additives have a medium particle size D50 of 2 microns to 2mm ([0195]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the medium particle size D50 is 0.5 to 6 microns.
Onozaki does not expressly disclose the layer, sheet or film has a concentration of the one or more light scattering additives in a range of 0.01 to 5% by weight, but the reference discloses the proportion of the inorganic pigment N to the total mass of inorganic particles contained in the layer is preferably at least 90 mass % ([0186]), which means other inorganic pigments such as particles M would be less than 10 mass %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 4, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the inorganic particles are particles formed from SiO2, silicone resin, BaSO4, Al2O3, BaMgAIOx , Eu-doped BaMgAIOx or glass (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 6, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a transmission of 20 to 100% for light in a range from 780 to 1500 nm and an average visible light reflectance from 10 to 100% in a range from 380 to 780 nm ([0011]), but the reference does not expressly disclose a transmission of ≥ 70% for light in a range from 400 to 1000 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 7, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a haze of ≥ 50% for light in a range from 400 to 1000 nm (it is disclosed white inorganic pigment N provides scattering of at least 95% of light from 400 to 780 nm and at least 50% in a wavelength from 780 to 1500 nm; [0188]-[0190]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the one or more effect pigments are selected from pearlescent pigments, interference pigments and multi-layer pigments (pearl pigment; [0191]-[0194]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the one or more effect pigments are selected from synthetic or natural mica, flake-form glass substrates, flake-form SiO2 substrates and flake-form Al2O3 substrates (flaky particle plate like aluminum oxide; [0192]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the flake- form substrate is coated with one or more layers of metal oxides and/or metal oxide hydrates of Ti, Sn, Si, Al, Zr, Fe, Cr and Zn (titanium dioxide or iron oxide coating; [0192]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the one or more effect pigments comprise two or more different effect pigments (more than one inorganic particles can be included; [0018]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the one or more effective pigments are present in the layer, sheet or film in a range of 0.01 to 15% by weight (as set forth above, such that the effect pigment would be 12 mass % to 40 mass % in the layer based on the calculations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 13, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the layer, sheet or film containing the one or more effect pigments and the one or more light scattering additives has a thickness in a range of 5 to 1000 µm (it is disclosed the average layer thickness is preferably from 5 to 2000 microns; [0210]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 18, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the layer, sheet or film further comprising a glass, ceramic or enamel layer (114A is a glass plate).
Regarding claim 21, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the layer, sheet or film is present as an encapsulant layer, film or sheet of a solar cell module (10) (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 22, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module (10) comprising a layer, sheet or film according to claim 1 ([0050]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module (10) comprising:
a transparent front cover layer (114A), optionally a further transparent layer (214A) at a front side of the colored solar cell or solar cell module (see Figure 2), and
a rear sheet (214B), wherein the transparent front cover layer, or the further transparent layer at the front side of the solar cell, comprises the layer, sheet or film according to claim 1 (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 24, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the rear sheet is black or has dark color (it is disclosed the pigment can be an organic pigment such as carbon black; [0014] and [0208]) and/or the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module further comprises an additional sheet or an encapsulant film, wherein the additional sheet or encapsulant film is black or has dark color.
Regarding claim 25, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the solar cell or colored solar cell module are colored black or a dark color prior to application of the layer with the one or more effect pigments and the one or more light scattering additives (it is disclosed the wiring can be coated in black, which colors the solar cells before application of the layer with the one or more effect pigments and the one or more light scattering additives; [0254]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the black or dark color appears as a grid covering bright areas that include spaces between individual solar cells (it is disclosed the organic pigment can be carbon black, which would cover spaces between individual solar cells and appear as a grid; [0208]) and conducting parts which electronically interconnect the individual solar cells (as set forth above, the wiring between solar cells can be coated in black).
Regarding claim 27, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the front cover layer and/or the rear sheet is a glass sheet ([0252]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the front cover layer and/or the rear sheet is a polymer sheet (214B is a fluorinated polymer; [0253]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses one or more amorphous, mono- and multi crystalline silicon solar cells, CIGS-, CdTe-, Ill/V- or II/VI-solar cells, perovskite solar cells, quantum dot solar cells, organic solar cells, or dye sensitized solar cells ([0254]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a process for preparing a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 23, by forming a stack of the components in a desired sequence and then laminating the components or layers together in one or more lamination steps by applying heat and/or pressure, or by using an adhesive or a binding agent ([0247]).
Regarding claim 31, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the layer, sheet or film containing the one or more effect pigments and the one or more light scattering additives is laminated to the transparent front cover layer in a first lamination step ([0213] and [0215]-[0216]), followed by lamination of the laminated front cover layer to the stack of the components in a second lamination step ([0218] and [0247]).
Regarding claim 33, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses conducting parts electronically interconnecting individual solar cells are colored black or in a dark color ([0254]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onozaki et al. (US 2020/0295705) in view of Delp et al. (US 2005/0096420).
Regarding claim 19, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose a process of preparing the layer, sheet or film is by melt extrusion of a polymer material, wherein the one or more effect pigments and one or more light scattering additives are added to a polymer melt of the polymer material before extrusion.
Delp discloses a method of forming a colored plastic comprising one or more transparent and/or semitransparent effect pigments, where the colored plastic is formed through a melt extrusion of a polymer material wherein the one or more effect pigments and one or more scattering additives are added to the polymer melt before extrusion, such that a very homogenous distribution of the effect pigments can be obtained ([0023]-[0024]).
Delp and modified Onozaki are analogous arts because both are directed to the use of transparent and/or semitransparent effect pigments in a plastic layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as using melt extrusion of a polymer material wherein the one or more effect pigments and one or more scattering additives are added to the polymer melt before extrusion in the method of modified Onozaki, as taught by Delp above, so that a very homogenous distribution of the effect pigments can be obtained, as set forth above. It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onozaki et al. (US 2020/0295705) in view of Hunger et al. (WO 2019/122079).
Regarding claim 20, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not disclose a process of preparing the layer, sheet or film according to claim 1 by:
mixing the one or more effect pigments and one or more scattering additives with glass frits or a ceramic or enamel precursor;
coating, printing or spraying the mixture onto a substrate and firing the mixture at a temperature above the glass temperature of the glass frits, ceramic or enamel, respectively.
Hunger discloses mixing the effect pigment either in a polymer based layer or a layer based on glass frits on a glass layer, where glass frit is mixed with the effect pigments and subsequently melting the mixture to form a glass like layer on the front glass (page 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the layer, sheet or film containing the one or more effect pigments in a layer based on glass frits in the device of modified Onozaki, as taught by Hunger, as ceramic glazes can be cured in a transparent and colorless manner that does not hinger the efficiency of the invention, provide good adhesion to the solar cell, good scratch resistance, and good stability, wettability and adhesion to the subsequent layer (page 14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose the light scattering additives to have a medium particle size D50 of 0.5 to 6 microns. However, Onozaki teaches overlapping ranges with the claimed range, as set forth above.
Therefore, the argument was not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections have been addressed by the amendments. However, numerous issues remain, as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
