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 § 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, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (JP 2013-229364; see English machine translation) in view of Kempe et al. (US 2009/0032101).
Regarding claim 1, 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) made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (page 3), a rear panel (1) made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (page 3), 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 a first encapsulation sublayer arranged on the upper surface of the solar cell array (top adhesive layer 2) and a second encapsulation sublayer arranged on the lower surface of the solar cell array (bottom adhesive layer 2) (see Figure 2),
a first ionomer interlayer film (top ionomer resin 3; page 2) is arranged between the first encapsulation sublayer and the solar cell array (see Figure 2) and a second ionomer interlayer film (bottom ionomer resin 3) arranged between the second encapsulation sublayer and the solar cell array (see Figure 2).
Sugiyama 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 polyvinyl acetate.
Kempe discloses it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an encapsulant consisting of about 67 wt% polyethylene and 33 wt% polyvinyl acetate as a common encapsulant due to polyethylene being a simple and inexpensive polymer and poly vinyl acetate being a transparent, amorphous polymer to form a material with high optical transmission and low glass transition temperature ([0007]).
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 selecting an encapsulant consisting polyethylene and polyvinyl acetate in the device of Sugiyama, as taught by Kempe above, as the combination of polyethylene and polyvinyl acetate provides a desirable encapsulant with high optical transmission and low glass transition temperature, 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.
It is noted that limitations directed to the method of making the flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, since the flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module as recited in the claim is the same as the flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module as disclosed by modified Sugiyama, as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable even though the flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sugiyama discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the two ionomer interlayer films have a film thickness in the range of 0.24 mm to 3.0 mm (it is disclosed each of the sealant layer is in the range of 120 microns 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.
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 16, modified Sugiyama discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
It is noted that limitations directed to the method of making the flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, since the flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module as recited in the claim is the same as the flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module as disclosed by modified Sugiyama, as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable even though the flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sugiyama discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first and second ionomer interlayer films are fully fused with the solar cell array (it is disclosed the flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module is laminated to fill and seal a space with the solar cells and bus bars without gaps, such that the ionomer interlayer films would be fused with the solar cell array; page 2; see Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art Sugiyama only discloses the crystalline silicon photovoltaic module to be flexible, but does not expressly disclose the solar cell array does not exhibit cracks at a flexibility angle of 60 degrees.
While Um et al. (“Flexible Crystalline-Silicon Photovoltaics: Light Management with Surface Structures”) discloses flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic devices that are capable of having a flexibility angle of 60 degrees (see Figure 1a) by reducing the photovoltaic device thickness, Um does not disclose the claimed structure for the flexible crystalline photovoltaic module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, and 16-18 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
Prosecution Insights