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 § 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, 2, 4-31, 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 1 recites the limitation "the light scattering centers". It is unclear which portion of the “one or more light scattering centers” is being referenced by “the light scattering centers” in the claim. Clarification is requested. Similar deficiency can be found in all the subsequent dependent claims.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation "the effect pigments". It is unclear which portion of the “one or more effect pigments” is being referenced by “the effect pigments” in the claim. Clarification is requested. Similar deficiency can be found in all the subsequent dependent claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “density fluctuations in fluids” in line 2. It is unclear what are defined as “density fluctuations in fluids” without further information regarding how these “density fluctuations” are formed or any other structural characteristics they possess. The instant specification has only disclosed “density fluctuations in fluids” in paragraph [0041] of the published application and “density fluctuations in the pigment layer” in paragraph [0063], but it is still unclear what exactly is encompassed by the structure to cause these “density fluctuations” to scatter light as asserted. Additionally, it is unclear how “density fluctuations in fluids” as described in the instant specification would apply to the layer, sheet, or film as claimed because it the layer, sheet or film is not a fluid and is not disclosed to comprise a fluid of any sort. Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 recites “the light scattering centers are selected from particles, bubbles, droplets, and density fluctuations in fluids”. However, claim 1 from which claim 2 depends upon recites “the light scattering centers are selected from organic or inorganic particles”, such that it is unclear how they are further selected from a variety of items unrelated to particles such as bubbles, droplets, and density fluctuations in fluids. Clarification is requested.
Similarly, claim 4 recites “the light scattering centers are selected from SiO2, silica spheres, silica flour, spherical silicone resin powder, BaSO4, Al2O3, BaMgAIOx or Eu-doped BaMgAIOx particles or glass bubbles” when claim 1 from which claim 4 depends upon already recites “the light scattering centers are selected from organic or inorganic particles”, such that it is unclear how they are further selected from a variety of items unrelated to particles. Clarification is requested.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the polymer is selected from EVA, EBA, EMA, EEA, POE, PC, BPO, PVB or TPU”. It is unclear what acronym is EBA, EMA, EEA and BPO. It is suggested to spell the acronyms out to clearly indicate what exactly they are.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “one or more light scattering additives comprising the light scattering centers”. As previously stated, it is recited in paragraph [0049] of the published application that “light scattering additives…these act as scattering centers”, such that it appears the two are the same. Therefore, it is highly recommended to use the same terminology for the same element for consistency and clarity of claim language. Additionally, it appears from the current amendment that Applicant is stating the light scattering additives to be the actual material and the light scattering centers to be something else undefined. If this is the case, then all of the previous recitation of “one or more light scattering centers” would be indefinite because it is not defined in the specification nor in the claims and does not appear to be the light scattering material itself. It is noted that the similar deficiency can be found in claim 20, such that it is unclear how it differs from the previously recited one or more light scattering centers in claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Claim 23 recites “a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module” and then “one or more solar cells or an array of solar cells”. It is unclear how a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module is able to comprise one or more solar cells or an array of solar cells. Clarification is requested.
Claim 25 recites “the one or more solar cells comprising the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module”. It is unclear how the one or more solar cells now comprise the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module when the claim is directed to the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module. As in, claim 23 from which claim 25 depends upon already recites the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module to comprise “one or more solar cells”, such that it is unclear how the “one or more solar cells” can suddenly comprise the very thing that it is part of. Clarification is requested.
Claim 26 recites “the solar cell(s) or solar cell array” and “the space between the solar cells and the conducting parts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because no “solar cells(s) or solar cell array” and “space between the solar cells and the conducting parts” have been previously recited.
Claim 31 recites the limitations “the effect pigments”, “the light scattering centers”, “the light scattering additive” and “a stack of the remaining components”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as no particular effect pigments of the one or more effect pigments and no particular light scattering centers of the one or more light scattering centers have been previously recited or identified. Additionally, no remaining components have been previously recited or identified in order for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what is encompassed by “the remaining components”.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the front sheet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as no front sheet has been previously recited.
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, 2, 4-17, 21-25, 27-31, 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; [0191]) and one or more light scattering centers (inorganic pigment N; [0191] and [0188]), the effect pigments comprising a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials (flaky particles comprising mica, glass, aluminum oxide or the like, the surface of which is covered with titanium dioxide, iron oxide; [0192]) and optionally a post coating,
wherein the light scattering centers are selected from organic or inorganic particles which are transparent or semi-transparent (white inorganic pigment; [0164]), and
wherein the layer, sheet or film has a concentration of the light scattering centers in the in a range of 0.01 to 10% by weight (preferably at least 20 mass % and at most 50 mass % of inorganic pigment N to the total mass of the layer ([0185]), where when there are two or more types of inorganic pigment N, the amount of white inorganic pigment N to the total amount of inorganic pigment N is preferably from 20 to 40 mass % ([0187]), which means a range of 4 mass % to 20 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 2, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the light scattering centers are selected from particles (as set forth above), bubbles, droplets and density fluctuations in fluids.
Regarding claim 4, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the light scattering centers are selected from SiO2, silica spheres, silica flour, spherical silicone resin powder, BaSO4, Al2O3, BaMgAIOx or Eu-doped BaMgAIOx particles or glass bubbles (aluminum oxide; [0164]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the layer, sheet or film has a concentration of the light scattering centers in the in a range of 0.01 to 5% by weight.
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 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 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 effect pigments are based on synthetic or natural mica, flake-form glass substrates, flake-form SiO2 substrates or 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 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 an amount of effect pigments 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 effect pigments and the light scattering centers 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 14, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a polymer, sol-gel, polysilazane, glass or ceramic (fluorinated polymer).
Regarding claim 15, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a polymer sheet or film (fluorinated polymer).
Regarding claim 16, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the polymer is selected from polyolefins, polyethylene or a copolymer thereof (Zendura is a polyurethane material; [0110]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the polymer is selected from EVA, EBA, EMA, EEA, POE, PC, BPO, PVB or TPU (Zendura is a polyurethane material; [0110]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses an encapsulant 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 the following components:
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),
one or more solar cells (16), or an array of solar cells, which are electrically interconnected by conducting parts (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 a 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 comprises an additional sheet or an encapsulant film provided between the one or more solar cells or the array of solar cells and the rear sheet, wherein said 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 conducting parts interconnecting the one or more solar cells comprising the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module are colored black or in a dark color prior to the application of the layer with the effect pigments and the light scattering centers ([0254]).
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 the one or more solar cells or the array of solar cells comprises 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 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 effect pigments and the light scattering centers is laminated to the front cover layer in a first lamination step ([0213] and [0215]), and the front sheet with the laminated layer, sheet or film containing the effect pigments and the light scattering centers is laminated to a stack of the remaining components in a second lamination step ([0218]).
Regarding claim 33, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the conducting parts interconnecting the 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 comprising the light scattering centers 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) 18 and 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 18, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the layer, sheet or film is a polyurethane thermoplastic ([0110]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the layer, sheet or film is a glass, ceramic or enamel layer.
Hunger discloses the use of effect pigments for a solar module, wherein the effect pigments are incorporated into an application medium including UV curable varnishes, polymer based layer including TPU, and ceramic glazes that are applied to the solar cell (page 12).
Since the prior art of Hunger recognizes the equivalency of polymer based material and ceramic glazes in the field of transparent substrates to incorporate the effect pigments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the polymer based material of modified Onozaki with the ceramic glaze of Hunger as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent transparent substrates recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and because 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).
Regarding claim 20, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses 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; and
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 (the ceramic frit is mixed with the effect pigments and cured; page 14).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onozaki et al. (US 2020/0295705) in view of Kubota et al. (US 5,807,440).
Regarding claim 26, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the conducting parts to be colored black or in a dark color (as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose a grid of dark color is incorporated into the solar cell(s) or solar cell array, said grid covering bright areas including but not limited to the space between the solar cells and the conducting parts.
Kubota discloses coloring electrodes on the light incident side of a solar module to be black or a color close to black with a high visible light absorption coefficient to reduce the amount of reflection of light (C6/L9-27).
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 coloring the grid that is on the light incident side of solar cells in the device of modified Onozaki, as taught by Kubota above, so that the amount of reflection of light at the light incident side of the solar module can be reduced, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that numerous 35 USC 112 (b) rejections have been addressed. However, numerous of them were not addressed while introducing additional issues. See 35 USC 112 (b) section above.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-31, and 33 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
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