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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20, 22, and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, an interlayer, and Group III, a method of making a tandem photovoltaic device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/22/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7, 9, and 11-13, drawn to Group I, a method of making a tandem photovoltaic device, in the reply filed on 5/22/2025 is acknowledged.
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) 1-7, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Li (CN 104538477 A, Machine Translation) in view of Hetzler (US 2012/0107615 A1) in view of Inamiya (US 2015/0007888 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9, Li discloses a tandem photovoltaic device comprising:
a first submodule (amorphous silicon battery [0033] [0039]-[0045]);
a second submodule (microcrystalline silicon thin film cell [0033][0046]-[0052]);
an interlayer ([0033]) disposed between the first submodule and the second submodule, wherein the interlayer permits a portion of light to pass therethrough (transparent [0033]), the interlayer including:
a first conformal layer ([0033] adhesive- ethylene-vinyl acetate/polyolefin [0034]) directly contacting and conforming to a portion of a surface of the first submodule,
a second conformal layer ([0033] adhesive EVA layer [0034]) directly contacting and conforming to a portion of a surface of the second submodule
a core layer ([0034 ] polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or PET) disposed between and directly contacting the first conformal layer and the second conformal layer.
However, Li does not explicitly disclose the melting point of the EVA and polytetrafluoroethylene composition used for the conformal layers and core layer, respectively.
Hetzler discloses a laminate structure (See Fig. 3 [0034]) comprising a PTFE or PET [0022] core layer (302, thermoplastic polymer [0017]-[0022]) between two conformal EVA/polyolefin layers (308/312, encapsulant layer, [0011]-[0012]) wherein the core layer is designed to have a PET/PTFE composition with a melting point above 200 degrees ([0017]-[0022]).
Inamiya discloses an EVA composition which is used as an adhesive composition in a solar cell wherein the EVA composition melting point can range between 60°C- 90°C ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the PTFE composition of the core and the EVA composition of the conformal layer of Li to have the melting points as disclosed by Hetzler by Inamiya because these compositions of EVA and PTFE are appropriate for use as solar cell laminate and adhesive compositions.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 3, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
The modification noted above with Inamiya discloses an EVA composition which is used as an adhesive composition in a solar cell wherein the EVA composition melting point can range between 60°C- 90°C ([0020]) which corresponds to the first and second conformal layers.
The modification noted above with Hetzler discloses a laminate structure wherein the core layer is designed to have a PTFE composition with a melting point above 200 degrees to above 300 degrees Celsius ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 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 Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Li discloses the same composition for the first and second conformal layer and the core layer, the same claimed melting point for the first and second conformal layer and the core layer and the claimed thickness for the first and second conformal layer and the core layer.
Therefore with regards to the properties of “wherein the interlayer has a dielectric strength greater than about 10 kV/mm” and “wherein the core layer has a dielectric strength greater than about 50 kV/mm”, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Li discloses wherein the interlayer has a thickness from about 100 μm to about 1500 μm (claims 2, 7, and [0033][0035]).
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 12, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Li does not explicitly disclose
wherein the interlayer has a refractive index in a range of 1.4 to 1.8 at 800 nm
wherein the interlayer is configured to transmit at least 90% of light having a wavelength from about 700 nm to about 1300 nm passing therethrough
wherein the first conformal layer and the second conformal layer have different thicknesses
Li discloses that this is a transparent interlayer and is between two solar cells ([0007][0033]).
The optical properties of the interlayer will affect light absorption of underlying solar cell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the above compositions of the conformal and core layers and/or thicknesses of the layers of Li to achieve the claimed properties of transparency/index of refraction because doing so will allow for optimization of light absorption of underlying solar cell.
It is also noted that according to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Li (CN 104538477 A, Machine Translation) in view of Hetzler (US 2012/0107615 A1) in view of Inamiya (US 2015/0007888 A1) as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 12 above and in further view LaCrampe (US 2017/0012151 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Li discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Li discloses that the core layer can comprise PET and Hetzler discloses that the core layer can comprise PET, however does not disclose wherein the core layer biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate.
LaCrampe discloses wherein the core layer used in a transparent multilayer film is a biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate ([0001][0027][0018]-[0023]) and using a biaxially oriented polyester film improves transparency, handling, and adhesion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the core PET layer of modified Li to use the biaxially orientated PET core film layer as disclosed by LaCrampe because LaCrampe discloses it is an appropriate core material for a multilayered film for use in photovoltaic module and furthermore improves transparency, handling,
However, Li does not disclose wherein the first/second conformal layer has a thickness from about 180 μm to about 740 μm and the core layer has a thickness from 25 μm to 200 μm. and adhesion.
In addition, Li discloses that the first and second conformal layer can have a thickness ranging from 10 microns to 200 microns and the core layer has a thickness of 200 microns (see claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 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 Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726