DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 07/02/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-24 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 04/02/2026, Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 5 and 18. Claims 9-10, 18 and 22-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being part of non-elected invention.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 3, 5 and 18, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 07/02/2026 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 107994086 A) (refer to translation provided on 05/01/2025) in view of Guttendorfer (DE 42 27 860 A1) (refer to translation as provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a photovoltaic module (flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module 9, figures 2-3 and 5) obtained from a stack (see figure 5) including:
a transparent first layer (combination of front weather layer 1, adhesive layer 8 and front plate layer 2, fig. 5 and page 7 of translation) forming the front face of the photovoltaic module, intended to receive a luminous flux;
a plurality of photovoltaic cells (battery layer 4) arranged side-by-side and electrically connected to each other (see figure 5 and page 7 of translation);
an assembly (filling material 3) encapsulating the plurality of photovoltaic cells (4) (fig. 5 and page 7 of translation);
a second layer (rear layer 6, or weatherable layer 7, or combination of rear layer 6, adhesive layer 8 and weatherable layer 7 – fig. 5 and page 7 of translation) forming the rear face of the photovoltaic module,
wherein the encapsulating assembly (3) and the plurality of photovoltaic cells (4) being located between the first (1+8+2) and second (6 or 7 or 6+8+7) layers (see figure 5),
wherein the first layer (1+8+2) includes:
a front layer (front weather layer 1) made of at least one polymer material, so-called “polymer front layer” (front weather layer 1 is made of ETFE, PVF, PVDF, FEP, PCTG, PC, PET or PMMA; page 6 of translation), and
at least one front assembly (adhesive layer 8 and front layer 2) comprising an interface front layer (adhesive layer 8) and a glass front layer (front layer 2 that is made of glass, page 3 of translation),
the glass front layer (2) having a thickness of 0.1-1.5 mm (page 3 of translation), which is smaller than or equal to 2 mm as claimed,
said at least one front assembly (8 and 2) being located between the polymer front layer (1) and the encapsulating assembly (3) (see fig. 5), and
the interface front layer (8) of said at least one front assembly (8+2) being located between the polymer front layer (1) and the glass front layer (2) (see figure 5).
Zhang further discloses that the glass front layer (2) having overall dimensions, in a plane transverse to a stacking direction of the module, strictly smaller than the overall dimensions of at least the polymer front layer (1) and the encapsulating assembly (3), such that the glass front layer (2) is completely encapsulated within the photovoltaic module (9).
However, Zhang does not disclose that the glass front layer having rounded edges at its corners.
Guttendorfer discloses a solar cell module wherein glass front layer (1 or 2) have rounded edges at its corners (10) (see fig. 2) in order to provide protection against environmental influence on the photovoltaic module (see page 2 of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the glass front layer of Zhang have rounded edges as taught by Guttendorfer in order to provide protection against environmental influence on the photovoltaic module.
Zhang as modified by Guttendorfer discloses that the glass front layer having rounded edges at its corners.
Since there is no structural and material difference between the glass front layer of Zhang as modified and that of the instant claim, the rounded edges of the glass front layer of modified Zhang must be capable of reducing stress concentration at the corners of the glass front layer as in the case of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further discloses that the distance (the thickness of the encapsulating material between front layer 2 and photovoltaic cell 4) between an edge of the glass front layer (2) and an edge of a photovoltaic cell (4) is 0-15mm (entire photovoltaic blanket 9 has a thickness of 0.5-2.5 mm, see page 6 of translation, and thus the distance must be between 0-2.5 mm).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further discloses a polymer frame (encapsulating or packaging material 3 formed at the edge of layer 2, see fig. 5, and the encapsulating or packaging material is made of polymer such as POE or PVB, see page 3) arranged all around the perimeter of glass front layer (2).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang as modified by Guttendorfer does not explicitly disclose that the glass front layer has rounded edges at its corners a radius of curvature (Rc) strictly larger than 1 mm. However, selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of radius of curvature as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang further discloses that the glass front layer (2) has a thickness smaller than or equal to 1.5 mm (0.1-1.5 mm, page 3 of translation).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang further discloses that the second layer (6) is formed by polymeric structure based on an electrically insulating polymer (polycarbonate, page 6 of translation).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang further discloses that the second layer (6+8+7) includes: a rear layer forming a rear panel (6+8+7) made of a composite material, comprising a main sub-layer (adhesive layer 8), forming the core of the rear panel (6+8+7), and two covering sub-layers (rear layer 6 and weatherable layer 7), each forming a plate of the rear panel (6+8+7), arranged on either side of the core so that the core (8) is sandwiched between the two plates (6 and 7), the core of the rear panel including a cellular structure (woven or net structure, page 3).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang further discloses that the polymer front layer (1) has a thickness of 0.02-0.2 mm (20-200 µm) (page 3 of translation), which is within the claimed range of 15-300 µm.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the interface front layer (8) has a thickness of 50-600 µm. However, selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of thickness of the interface front layer as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang further discloses that the polymer material of the polymer front layer (1) is ETFE (page 6 of translation).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang further discloses that the encapsulating assembly (3) is made of EVA (“packaging material is EVA”, page 3 of translation), and the interface front layer (8) is made of EVA (“adhesive layer 8 is made of … EVA”, page 5 of translation).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang further discloses that the first layer (1+8+2) includes a first front assembly (8+2) comprising an interface front layer (8) and a glass front layer (2), the glass front layer (2) having a thickness of 0.1-1.5 mm (page 3 of translation), which is smaller than or equal to 2 mm as claimed. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose a second front assembly comprising an interface front layer and a glass front layer, the glass front layer having a thickness smaller than or equal to 2 mm, the first front assembly being located between the polymer front layer and the second front assembly, itself located between the first front assembly and the encapsulating assembly.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Thus, in absence of evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to add another front assembly adjacent to the first front assembly.
Thus, Zhang as modified discloses a second front assembly (8+2) comprising an interface front layer (8) and a glass front layer (2), the glass front layer (2) having a thickness of 0.1-1.5 mm (page 3 of translation), which is smaller than or equal to 2 mm as claimed.
Zhang as modified further discloses the first front assembly being located between the polymer front layer and the second front assembly, itself located between the first front assembly and the encapsulating assembly.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the thickness of the glass front layer of the first front assembly is larger than the thickness of the glass front layer of the second front assembly. However, instant application as originally filed fails to disclose whether claimed thickness variation is critical. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of thickness of the each of the glass front layer as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses a method for making a photovoltaic module (flexible crystalline silicon photovoltaic module 9, figures 2-3 and 5) according to claim 1, from a stack (see figure 5) including:
a transparent first layer (combination of front weather layer 1, adhesive layer 8 and front plate layer 2, fig. 5 and page 7 of translation) forming the front face of the photovoltaic module, intended to receive a luminous flux;
a plurality of photovoltaic cells (battery layer 4) arranged side-by-side and electrically connected to each other (see figure 5 and page 7 of translation);
an assembly (filling material 3) encapsulating the plurality of photovoltaic cells (4) (fig. 5 and page 7 of translation);
a second layer (rear layer 6, or weatherable layer 7, or combination of rear layer 6, adhesive layer 8 and weatherable layer 7 – fig. 5 and page 7 of translation) forming the rear face of the photovoltaic module,
wherein the encapsulating assembly (3) and the plurality of photovoltaic cells (4) being located between the first (1+8+2) and second (6 or 7 or 6+8+7) layers (see figure 5),
wherein the first layer (1+8+2) includes:
a front layer (front weather layer 1) made of at least one polymer material, so-called “polymer front layer” (front weather layer 1 is made of ETFE, PVF, PVDF, FEP, PCTG, PC, PET or PMMA; page 6 of translation), and
at least one front assembly (adhesive layer 8 and front layer 2) comprising an interface front layer (adhesive layer 8) and a glass front layer (front layer 2 that is made of glass, page 3 of translation),
the glass front layer (2) having a thickness of 0.1-1.5 mm (page 3 of translation), which is smaller than or equal to 2 mm as claimed,
said at least one front assembly (8 and 2) being located between the polymer front layer (1) and the encapsulating assembly (3) (see fig. 5), and
the interface front layer (8) of said at least one front assembly (8+2) being located between the polymer front layer (1) and the glass front layer (2) (see figure 5).
Zhang further discloses that the glass front layer (2) having overall dimensions, in a plane transverse to a stacking direction of the module, strictly smaller than the overall dimensions of at least the polymer front layer (1) and the encapsulating assembly (3), such that the glass front layer (2) is completely encapsulated within the photovoltaic module (9).
However, Zhang does not disclose that the glass front layer having rounded edges at its corners.
Guttendorfer discloses a method of making a solar cell module wherein glass front layer (1 or 2) have rounded edges at its corners (10) (see fig. 2) in order to provide protection against environmental influence on the photovoltaic module (see page 2 of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the glass front layer of Zhang have rounded edges as taught by Guttendorfer in order to provide protection against environmental influence on the photovoltaic module.
Zhang as modified by Guttendorfer discloses that the glass front layer having rounded edges at its corners.
Since there is no structural and material difference between the glass front layer of Zhang as modified and that of the instant claim, the rounded edges of the glass front layer of modified Zhang must be capable of reducing stress concentration at the corners of the glass front layer as in the case of the instant application.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang further discloses that the glass front layer (2) has dimensions strictly smaller than those of the front layer (1) made of at least one polymer material and those of the second layer (6 or 7) (see figure 5 that shows layer 2 having smaller width than layer 6 or 7).
Although Zhang does not explicitly disclose the distance separating an edge of the glass front layer and an edge of the front layer made of at least one polymer material or an edge of the second layer being strictly larger than 1 mm, it is noted that selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of distance as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 21, Zhang does not disclose the polymer frame (CP) having in particular a width comprised between 5 mm and 50 mm. However, it is noted that selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of width as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 107994086 A) (refer to translation provided on 05/01/2025) in view of Guttendorfer (DE 42 27 860 A1) (refer to translation as provided herewith) as applied above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (WO 2014/050193 A1) (refer to translation as provided herewith).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further discloses that the glass front layer (2) is preferably made of tempered glass (“Preferably, the front board … made of …tempered glass”, page 3).
MPEP states that “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). (see MPEP §2123).
MPEP further states that “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.” In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). (see MPEP §2123).
Thus, one reading Zhang as a whole would have readily apricated that the front glass layer (3) can be made of other types of glass. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the use of untampered glass.
Nishimura is directed to a solar cell module (410, fig. 26) wherein the glass front layer (408) comprises tempered or untampered glass (page 23). Thus, Nishimura explicitly discloses both tempered glass and untampered glass are art-recognized equivalent materials to from the glass front layer of a solar cell module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used untampered glass as taught by Nishimura because substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious (MPEP §2144.06 (II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 11-17 and 19-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
On page of Remarks, Applicant argues that Zhang as modified does not disclose the rounded edges reduce stress concentration.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang as modified by Guttendorfer discloses that the glass front layer having rounded edges at its corners. Since there is no structural and material difference between the glass front layer of Zhang as modified and that of the instant claim, the rounded edges of the glass front layer of modified Zhang must be capable of reducing stress concentration at the corners of the glass front layer as in the case of the instant application.
Other limitation regarding the dimension is taught by Zhang (see above).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights