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
The amendment filed March 9th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The objection to claims 10 and 19 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(a) rejection of claim 8 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 8, and 10-15 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Hamakawa are maintained.
New rejections follow.
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.
Claims 8, 10-12, 14-15, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamakawa (JP-2004335563-A) as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich “Hydrophobic Polymers”. Hamakawa is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 8, Hamakawa discloses a photovoltaic module (Figs. 1-3a) comprising:
at least one photovoltaic element (Figs. 1-3a, #1)
and at least one glass cover glass plate covering a light receiving surface (Fig. 2, #31 – Page 1, Lines 7-8 & 40-41 – the two opposing plates),
The two opposing plates or plate material is not particularly limited and can be a glass plate material (Page 2, Lines 2-5);
with a uniform textured coating of a light-receiving surface (Page 1, Lines 40-41 – “a transparent body is provided on the light receiving surface” & See Figs. 2-3a – Page 2, Lines 15-32 & See Page 1, Lines 1-2 – “transparent body for refracting light…may be attached to the surface of the plate material);
wherein the uniform textured coating material is a polymer film (Page 2, Lines 43-45 – “the type of resin used on the light receiving surface side is not particularly limited…polycarbonate, acrylic resin, polyethyelene terephthalate” etc.); attached to the light-receiving surface of the glass plate (Page 2, Lines 1-3 - The transparent body for refracting light may be formed integrally with a plate material sandwiching the solar battery cell, or may be attached to the surface of the plate material); and
the uniformly textured surface is a plurality of prisms having a triangular base (Figs. 2-3a & Page 2, Lines 15-32);
Hamakawa teaches that the uniform textured coating including the plurality of prims with a triangular bases ensures that light from the sun above can be efficiently received in a large area, thus it’s the Examiner’s position that they provide maximal sunlight harvesting gain (Page 2, Starting at line 22).
Hamakawa teaches that the uniform textured coating material can be a film comprised of polyvinyl chloride, PTFE, polystyrene (Page 2, Lines 2-8), which are known naturally hydrophobic anti-soiling materials as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich “Hydrophobic Polymers” (Page 2, Lines 2-8).
In view of Claim 11, Hamakawa is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Hamakawa teaches that the direction of height of the prism is a height parallel, perpendicular, or oblique to a long side of the module (Figs. 1-3a).
In view of Claim 12, Hamakawa is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Hamakawa teaches that the shape of the triangle base may be regular, e.g., equilateral without its apex shifted (Fig. 1, #31 & Page 2, Lines 17-41)
In view of Claim 14, Hamakawa is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Hamakawa teaches that the photovoltaic module is configured for installation vertically relative to the group (Fig. 1).
In view of Claim 15, Hamakawa is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Hamakawa teaches that the module is configured to be oriented along a South-North direction (Page 2, Lines 33-34).
In view of Claim 19, Hamakawa is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Hamakawa teaches that the uniform textured coating material can be a film comprised of polyvinyl chloride, PTFE, polystyrene (Page 2, Lines 2-8), which are known naturally hydrophobic anti-soiling materials as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich “Hydrophobic Polymers” (Page 2, Lines 2-8).
In view of Claim 21, Hamakawa discloses a photovoltaic module (Figs. 1-3a) comprising:
at least one photovoltaic element (Figs. 1-3a, #1)
and at least one glass cover glass plate (Fig. 2, #31 – Page 1, Lines 7-8 & 40-41 – the two opposing plates),
The two opposing plates or plate material is not particularly limited and can be a glass plate material (Page 2, Lines 2-5);
with a uniform textured coating of a light-receiving surface (Page 1, Lines 40-41 – “a transparent body is provided on the light receiving surface” & See Figs. 2-3a – Page 2, Lines 15-32 & See Page 1, Lines 1-2 – “transparent body for refracting light…may be attached to the surface of the plate material);
wherein the uniform textured coating material is a polymer film (Page 2, Lines 43-45 – “the type of resin used on the light receiving surface side is not particularly limited…polycarbonate, acrylic resin, polyethyelene terephthalate” etc.); attached to the light-receiving surface of the glass plate (Page 2, Lines 1-3 - The transparent body for refracting light may be formed integrally with a plate material sandwiching the solar battery cell, or may be attached to the surface of the plate material); and
the uniformly textured surface is a plurality of prisms having a triangular base (Figs. 2-3a & Page 2, Lines 15-32);
Hamakawa teaches that the uniform textured coating including the plurality of prims with a triangular bases ensures that light from the sun above can be efficiently received in a large area, thus it’s the Examiner’s position that they provide maximal sunlight harvesting gain (Page 2, Starting at line 22).
Hamakawa teaches that the uniform textured coating material can be a film comprised of polyvinyl chloride, PTFE, polystyrene (Page 2, Lines 2-8), which are known naturally hydrophobic anti-soiling materials as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich “Hydrophobic Polymers” (Page 2, Lines 2-8).
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.
Claims 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamakawa (JP-2004335563-A) as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich “Hydrophobic Polymers” in view of Bujard (EP-3667738-A1). Hamakawa is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 13, Hamakawa is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Hamakawa does not disclose the size of the triangle base is tens of microns to one millimeter.
Bujard discloses the size of triangle bases can be at least 50 micrometers (Figure 3, B & Paragraph 0062). Bujard discloses that this texturing may improve the efficiency of a bifacial photovoltaic module (Paragraph 0002). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the size of triangle bases can be at least 50 micrometers for the advantage of improving the efficiency of Hamakawa bifacial photovoltaic module.
In view of Claim 16, Hamakawa discloses a bi-facial photovoltaic module (Figs. 1-3a & Page 3, Line 6) comprising:
a front side glass cover and a backside glass plate (Fig. 2, #31 – Page 1, Lines 40-41 – the two opposing plates),
the two opposing plates or plate material is not particularly limited and can be a glass plate material (Page 2, Lines 2-5);
with a uniform textured coating on each light-receiving surface of the front side and backside glass plates (Page 1, Lines 40-41 – “a transparent body is provided on the light receiving surface” & See Figs. 2-3a – Page 2, Lines 15-32 & See Page 1, Lines 1-2 – “transparent body for refracting light…may be attached to the surface of the plate material);
wherein the uniform textured coating material is a polymer film (Page 2, Lines 43-45 – “the type of resin used on the light receiving surface side is not particularly limited…polycarbonate, acrylic resin, polyethyelene terephthalate” etc.);
wherein the uniform textured coating material is a polymer film (Page 2, Lines 43-45 – “the type of resin used on the light receiving surface side is not particularly limited…polycarbonate, acrylic resin, polyethyelene terephthalate” etc.); attached to the light-receiving surface of the glass plate (Page 2, Lines 1-3 - The transparent body for refracting light may be formed integrally with a plate material sandwiching the solar battery cell, or may be attached to the surface of the plate material); thus meeting the limitation “a height extending rom the one side of the glass over the plate”;
wherein the uniform texture coating is configured to direct the sunlight rat vectors of incident light and refracted light towards the multiplicity of PV cells in order to reduce reflection of the sunlight rays from the frontside glass cover plate (Page 2, Lines 15-32);
the uniformly textured surface is a plurality of prisms having a triangular base (Figs. 2-3a & Page 2, Lines 15-32).
Hamakawa teaches that the uniform textured coating including the plurality of prims with a triangular bases ensures that light from the sun above can be efficiently received in a large area, thus it’s the Examiner’s position that they provide maximal sunlight harvesting gain (Page 2, Starting at line 22).
Hamakawa teaches that the uniform textured coating material can be a film comprised of polyvinyl chloride, PTFE, polystyrene (Page 2, Lines 2-8), which are known naturally hydrophobic anti-soiling materials as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich “Hydrophobic Polymers” (Page 2, Lines 2-8).
Hamakawa does not disclose that the multiplicity of PV cells are silicon.
Bujard discloses a multiplicity of PV cells are silicon that are commonly known in the art and preferably used (Figs. 4-6, #3 & Paragraph 0015, 0025, 0057). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate silicon as the multiplicity of PV cells of Hamakawa because silicon is a commonly known PV cell material and is preferably used thus the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
In view of Claim 20, Hamakawa is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Hamakawa teaches that the uniform textured coating material can be a film comprised of polyvinyl chloride, PTFE, polystyrene (Page 2, Lines 2-8), which are known naturally hydrophobic anti-soiling materials as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich “Hydrophobic Polymers” (Page 2, Lines 2-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Hamakawa does not disclose the prism orientation and triangle angles there provide maximal sunlight harvesting. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Hamakawa teaches that the uniform textured coating including the plurality of prims with a triangular bases ensures that light from the sun above can be efficiently received in a large area, thus it’s the Examiner’s position that they provide maximal sunlight harvesting gain (Page 2, Starting at line 22). Additionally, Hamakawa discloses the same structure as Applicant and would inherently provide “maximal sunlight harvesting gain”. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights