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 2, 4, 19, 25, 26, 29, 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 2 recites the limitation "the organic or inorganic particles are selected from particles, bubbles and droplets.” It is unclear how organic or inorganic particles would encompass bubbles or droplets when the definition of a “bubble” by the Cambridge dictionary is “a ball of gas that appears in a liquid, or a ball formed of air surrounded by liquid that floats in the air,” and the definition of “particle” by the Cambridge dictionary is “an extremely small piece of something such as dust, dirt, or sand” or “an extremely small piece of matter, that together with others make up an atom,” which is not the same thing. Additionally, one would also not consider “droplets” to be synonymous with “particles,” where the definition for “droplets” is “a small drop of liquid.” Further, the organic or inorganic particles are already stated to be particles, such that stating they are selected from particles is redundant and does not further limit the subject matter.
Claim 4 recites “the inorganic particles are selected from SiO2, silica spheres, silica flour, spherical silicone resin powder, BaSO4, Al2O3, BaMgAIOx or Eu-doped BaMgAIOx particles and glass bubbles.” It is unclear how “inorganic particles” are further selected from a variety of items unrelated to particles such as SiO2, , BaSO4, Al2O3, and BaMgAIOx. Clarification is requested.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the one or more effect pigments and one or more light scattering additives comprising the one or more light scattering additives,” which is redundant. Clarification is requested.
Claim 25 recites “one or more solar cells or an array of solar cells which are electronically interconnected by conducting parts and which comprise the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 23”. It is unclear how one solar cell can comprise the colored solar cell module, such that it appears only a “plurality” of solar cells and array of solar cells can comprise both the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module as recited. Clarification is requested.
It is suggested to simplify the claim language to recite:
“The colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 23, wherein the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module are colored black….” For better form.
Additionally, claim 25 recites “the solar cell”, 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 26 recites “the solar cells” in line 4. It is unclear which of the “one or more solar cells or the array of solar cells” is being referenced by “the solar cells” limitation. Clarification is requested. Additionally, it is unclear if “the solar cells” would encompass the previously mentioned colored solar cell or colored solar cell module. Applicant is suggested to use only one terminology instead of multiple different ones and variations to avoid confusion and complication. Clarification is requested.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the one or more solar cells or the array of solar cells.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no one or more solar cells or array of solar cells has been recited in claim 23 from which claim 29 depends upon. Clarification is requested.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “a front cover layer.” However, claim 23 from which claim 31 depends upon already recites “a transparent front cover layer”, such that it is unclear if the limitation is referencing a different front cover layer or the same front cover layer in claim 23. Additionally, claim 23 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 front cover layer as recited in claim 31.
It appears that claim 31 is further defining the lamination step 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 lamination step in claim 30 is being further defined. Additionally, the claim recites “a front sheet with the laminated layer, sheet or film…”. It is unclear if the limitation is recited a front sheet that is an additional element not previously recited in claim 23 or is referencing “a further transparent layer at a front side of the colored solar cell or solar cell module”. Clarification is requested. Further, claim 30 already recites “a stack of the components”, such that claim 31 also recites “a stack of the components” and therefore it is unclear if the recitation of the limitation in claim 31 is referencing the same or different stack of the components. Clarification is requested.
Claim 33 recites “the conducting parts interconnecting the solar cells” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no conducting parts interconnecting the solar cells have been recited in claim 23 from which claim 33 depends upon. Similar deficiency is found with the limitation “the solar cells”. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-11, 13-17, 21-24, and 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kudo et al. (US 2021/0043787).
Regarding claim 1, Kudo discloses a layer, sheet or film (14) comprising one or more effect pigments (Gp glitter pigment particle) and one or more light scattering additives (interference silica flake; [0048]), 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 (blue XIRALLIC® T60-23WNT GALAXY by Merck is an aluminum oxide flake pigment coated with metal oxide; [0064]; see product information for XIRALLIC® NXT TIGRIS BLUE as example from Merck on page 3) 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 (silica flake, as set forth above, is inorganic and semi-transparent if not transparent; [0012]) and
wherein the layer, sheet or film has a concentration of the one or more light scattering additives in a range of 0.01 to 10% by weight (it is disclosed when different colors of the scaly glitter pigments are used, the content of the scaly glitter pigment is 10 weight %; [0068]).
Regarding claim 2, Kudo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the organic or inorganic particles are selected from particles, bubbles, and droplets (silica flake above).
Regarding claim 4, Kudo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the inorganic particles are selected from SiO2, silica spheres, silica flour, spherical silicone resin powder, BaSO4, Al203, BaMgAIOx or Eu-doped BaMgAIOx particles and glass bubbles (SiO2, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 6, Kudo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses having a transmission of ≥ 70% for light in the range from 400 to 1000 nm ([0013]).
Regarding claim 8, Kudo 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 ([0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Kudo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the one or more effect pigments are based on synthetic or natural mica, flake-form glass substrates, flake-form SiO2 substrates or flake-form Al2O3 substrates (alumina flake, silica flake; [0012]).
Regarding claim 10, Kudo 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 (it is known that blue XIRALLIC® T60-23WNT GALAXY is an alumina flake with a coating of metal oxide; see product information for XIRALLIC® NXT TIGRIS BLUE as example from Merck on page 3).
Regarding claim 11, Kudo 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 (it is disclosed different colors of pigments can be used; [0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Kudo 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 (10 to 30 microns; [0013]).
Regarding claim 14, Kudo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the layer, sheet or film is a polymer, sol-gel, polysilazane, glass or ceramic (it is disclosed resins can be used for the base material; [0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Kudo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the layer, sheet or film is a polymer sheet or film (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 16, Kudo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the polymer is selected from polyolefins, polyethylene or a copolymer thereof (polyolefin resin; [0048]).
Regarding claim 17, Kudo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the polymer is selected from ethylene vinyl acetate, ethylene butyl acrylate, ethylene methyl acrylate, ethylene ethyl acrylate, polyolefin elastomer, polyolefin copolymer, polyvinylbutyral and thermoplastic polyurethane (urethane resin; [0048]).
Regarding claim 21, Kudo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses comprising an encapsulant film or sheet of a solar cell module (1; see Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 22, Kudo discloses a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module comprising a layer, sheet or film according to claim 1 (abstract; see Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 23, Kudo discloses a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module (1; see Figure 2B) comprising the following components:
a transparent front cover layer (16),
optionally a further transparent layer (14) at a front side of the colored solar cell or solar cell module, and
a rear sheet (10), 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, Kudo 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 back plane member 10 can be black; [0052]) 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 the additional sheet or encapsulant film is black or has dark color.
Regarding claim 27, Kudo 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 (it is disclosed the rear sheet can be glass; [0047]).
Regarding claim 28, Kudo 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 (it is disclosed the back plane member 10 can be polycarbonate; [0047]).
Regarding claim 29, Kudo 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-, IIII/V- or II/VI-solar cells, perovskite solar cells, quantum dot solar cells, organic solar cells or dye sensitized solar cells ([0047]).
Regarding claim 30, Kudo discloses a process for preparing a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module (1) 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 ([0055]; see Figures 4a-4d).
Regarding claim 31, Kudo 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 a front cover layer in a first lamination step ([0055]; Figure 4b), and a front sheet with the laminated layer, sheet or film containing the one or more effect pigments and the one or more light scattering additives is laminated to a stack of the components in a second lamination step ([0056]; see Figure 4d).
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, 4-16, 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 such as pearl pigment; [0191]) and one or more light scattering additives (inorganic pigment N; [0191] and [0188]), 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 (white inorganic pigment; [0164]), and
wherein the layer, sheet or film has a concentration of the one or more light scattering additives 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 organic or inorganic particles are selected from particles (as set forth above), bubbles, and droplets.
Regarding claim 4, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the inorganic particles are selected from SiO2, silica spheres, silica flour, spherical silicone resin powder, BaSO4, Al2O3, BaMgAIOx or Eu-doped BaMgAIOx particles and 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 one or more light scattering additives 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 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 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 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 14, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a polymer, sol-gel, polysilazane, glass or ceramic (fluoroolefin; [0073]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Onozaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a polymer sheet or film (fluoroolefin; [0073]).
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 (ethylene/tetrafluoroethylene copolymer; [0080]).
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), 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 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 one or more solar cells or an array of solar cells which are electronically interconnected by conducting parts and which comprise the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 23 (as set forth above), where the solar cell or colored solar cell module are colored black or in 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 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 one or more effect pigments and the one or more light scattering additives is laminated to a front cover layer in a first lamination step ([0213] and [0215]), and a front sheet with the laminated layer, sheet or film containing the one or more effect pigments and the one or more light scattering additives is laminated to a stack of the 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 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) 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 one or more solar cells or the array of solar cells, the grid covering bright areas including but not limited to a 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 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the present invention achieves unexpectedly improved coloring layers for solar modules with a haze that resulted in a more uniform color that did not negatively impact, or in some cases even enhanced the color intensity, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that pending claims 14 to 17 are directed to preferred polymers of the present invention, such that pending claims 15 to 18 do not require fluorinated polymers and Onozaki requires a fluorinated polymer. However, it is unclear if Applicant is referring to claims 14 to 17 or claims 15 to 18 as it changes in the argument. Additionally, claim 14 only requires “a polymer” and does not exclude any particular kind of polymer. Claim 15 also only requires “a polymer”. Claim 16 requires “a copolymer thereof” in which Onozaki discloses the fluorinated polymer can be a copolymer of ethylene and tetrafluoroethylene, as set forth above in the Office Action. It is noted that claim 18 recites “a glass, ceramic or enamel layer” and does not require any polymer. It is further noted that claim 17 was amended to exclude polycarbonate (PC) and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) and to include polyolefin copolymer, such that previously cited reference Kudo was relied upon for claim 17 in the above Office Action. It is also noted that “BPO” is not synonymous with “polyolefin copolymer” as asserted in the instant specification, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “BPO” (benzoyl peroxide) is used with polyolefin copolymers to act as a free radical initiator and is not understood to be a polyolefin copolymer, such that the scope of claim 17 has been changed.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be persuasive.
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 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
Prosecution Insights