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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 12/19/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The first amendment to the specification stating:
In some instances, the at least one ionomer interlayer film has a film thickness in the range of 0.3 mm to 3.0 mm.
As set forth below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) rejection, nowhere is there support in the original disclosure for this feature.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As previously stated, the claim limitation in original claim 4 recites “the ionomer interlayer films have a film thickness in the range of 0.3 mm to 3.0 mm”, where the instant specification has not stated any particular thickness for the ionomer interlayer films either alone or in combination.
Applicant amended claim 4 to recite “at least one of the two ionomer interlayer films has a film thickness in the range of 0.3 mm to 3.0 mm” and asserts the support can be found in original claim 3. It is unclear how the support is found in original claim 3 unless Applicant is referring to the fact claim 3 recites there are two ionomer interlayer films, which then would mean the only support that is alluded by original claim 3 is that the two ionomer interlayer films combined has a thickness in the range of 0.3 mm to 3.0 mm as previously interpreted in the Non-final Office Action.
Nowhere does the instant specification nor the original claims support at least one of the two ionomer interlayer films has a film thickness in the range of 0.3 mm to 3.0 mm, which means at least one of the ionomer interlayer films individually and separately can have the recited thickness range and not that combined can have the recited thickness range.
Therefore, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (JP 2013-229364; see English machine translation) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 212010995; see English machine translation) and in view of Chen et al. (CN 209045581; see English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Sugiyama discloses a flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module (20; it is disclosed crystalline silicon solar cell in an example; page 2; see Figure 2), comprising a front panel (1), a rear panel (1), an encapsulation layer (2) and a solar cell array (5), the front panel and the rear panel being respectively arranged outside the encapsulation layer (see Figure 2), on which an upper surface and a lower surface of the solar cell array are laminated (see Figure 2),
wherein the encapsulation layer comprises two sublayers, where one of the two sublayers is arranged on the upper surface of the solar cell array and the other of the two sublayers is arranged on the lower surface of the solar cell array (see Figure 2),
an ionomer interlayer film (ionomer resin 3; page 2) is arranged between the encapsulation layer and the solar cell array (see Figure 2),
the front panel is a transparent PET polymer panel (page 3) and the rear panel is a PET polymer panel (page 3).
Sugiyama does not expressly disclose the ionomer interlayer film has shear modulus G and Young's modulus E values according to the following tables:
shear modulus G [MPa]
PNG
media_image1.png
328
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Young's modulus E [MPa]
PNG
media_image2.png
209
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2 of 8
PNG
media_image3.png
119
609
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where the shear modulus G and Young's modulus E values are in a range +/- 5 % from the values inside the tables, or more specifically, in a range +/- 2.5% from the values inside the tables.
Zhang discloses the use of an ionomer interlayer film such as Sentry Glas PlusTM (SGP) (page 4) within a photovoltaic module.
Chen also discloses the use of an ionomer interlayer film such as SGP (first film layer 2) within a photovoltaic module ([0060]; see Figure 1), where the use of SGP layer allows the overall solar module thickness to be relatively thin and lightweight while providing effective adhesive strength and tensile strength ([0069]).
Therefore, 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 Sentry Glas PlusTM as the ionomer interlayer material in the device of Sugiyama, as taught by Zhang and Chen above, as SGP is a known ionomer interlayer material that allows the photovoltaic module to be relatively thin and lightweight while providing adhesive and tensile strength, 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.
While modified Sugiyama does not expressly disclose the at least one ionomer interlayer film has shear modulus G and Young's modulus E values according to the above tables, it is noted that once at least one ionomer interlayer film is disclosed to comprise Sentry Glas PlusTM, and therefore is substantially the same as the at least one ionomer interlayer film disclosed in the instant specification on page 2, it will, inherently, display the recited properties. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sugiyama discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the ionomer interlayer film is arranged on the upper surface of the solar cell array or the lower surface of the solar cell array (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sugiyama discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further comprising a second ionomer interlayer film arranged between the encapsulation sublayers and the solar cell array where one of the two ionomer interlayer films is arranged on the upper surface of the solar cell array and the other of the two ionomer interlayer films is arranged on the lower surface of the solar cell array (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sugiyama discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses at least one of the two ionomer interlayer films has a film thickness in the range of 120 to 150 microns (page 2), but the reference does not expressly disclose at least one of the two ionomer interlayer films has a film thickness in the range of 0.3 mm to 3.0 mm.
Chen further discloses the thickness of the SGP film layer can be less than 3 mm, less than 2.5 mm, or less than 1 mm in order to optimize the overall thickness of the solar module ([0069]).
As the adhesive strength and the overall weight and flexibility of the solar module are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the SGP film, with said adhesive strength and overall weight of the solar module both increasing and the flexibility of the solar module decreasing as the thickness of the SGP film is increased, the precise thickness of the SGP film layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness of the SGP film cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the SGP film layer in the apparatus of modified Sugiyama to obtain the desired balance between the adhesive strength, overall weight and flexibility of the solar module (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (JP 2013-229364; see English machine translation) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 212010995; see English machine translation) and in view of Chen et al. (CN 209045581; see English machine translation) in view of Nelson et al. (US 2011/0036390).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sugiyama discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the encapsulation layer is made of a polyester/polycarbonate combination adhesive (page 2), but the reference does not expressly disclose the encapsulation layer is made of any one of EVA, POE or PVB.
Nelson discloses it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use EVA, polyesters or polycarbonate as an encapsulant material for photovoltaic modules ([0027]).
Since the prior art of Nelson recognizes the equivalency of selecting EVA and polyesters in the field of encapsulant materials for photovoltaic modules, 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 polyester/polycarbonate of modified Sugiyama with the EVA of Nelson as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent encapsulant materials recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that support for the amendments to the specification can be found in at least original claim 3. However, it is unclear how original claim 3 provides support for the amendments, as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) rejection. Nowhere does claim 3 recite any thickness ranges for any layer, such that it is not clear where the support is located. Additionally, as set forth above, original claim 3 has only stated that there are two ionomer interlayer films, such that if Applicant asserts support is found in original claim 3, then the interpretation of original claim 4 in the previous Office Action would be correct, such that the two ionomer interlayer films together have the recited film thickness and not just one of the two ionomer interlayer films as amended.
Applicant argues that with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections, claims 3 and 4 have been amended to overcome the rejections. However, new issues have been introduced, as set forth above.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach the use of SGP as a film arranged between an encapsulation layer and a solar cell array and only suggest the use of SGP as a glue to bond upper and lower cover plates and does not teach or suggest that SGP is suitable for use as a film in photovoltaic device.
However, Sugiyama already recites at least one ionomer resin layer and its placement within the device, as set forth in the Office Action above, such that Zhang was relied upon only to teach the selection of SGP as the ionomer resin layer, where Zhang discloses an ionic intermediate film such as SGP to be suitable for bonding the photovoltaic module together and as shown in Figure 3. It is unclear why or how Zhang does not teach or suggest that SGP is suitable for use as a film in a photovoltaic device when it is clearly shown in Figure 3 and described throughout the reference.
Applicant further argues that Chang does not teach the use of SGP as an ionomer interlayer film in a photovoltaic module because Chang only teaches “Surper Safe Glass” and does not state it is the same as “Sentry Glas PlusTM” nor that “Surper Safe Glass” is an ionomer at all.
However, first of all, there is no “Chang” reference cited in the Office Action. Second of all, Chen clearly states the film to be SGP and that it is an ionomer interlayer ([0007] in newly provided machine translation) which appears to be a difference in translation and is equivalent to the “Sentry Glas PlusTM” as known by Applicant. As shown by various glass websites, Sieger states SGP to be Sentry Glas Plus and SCGMA states SGP to be “Sentry Glas PlusTM”, such that it is well known in the art that SGP means “Sentry Glas PlusTM”. Therefore, it does not appear that Chen is referencing another “SGP” that also is an ionomer interlayer. Applicant has not presented another SGP known in the art to be an ionomer interlayer for the same purpose that is not “Sentry Glas PlusTM”, such that the argument was not found to be persuasive.
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