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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce et al. (WO 2013/180823) in view of Gaume et al. (FR 3043840; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Pearce discloses a high-output shingled photovoltaic module applicable to building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) ([0036] and [0061]; see Figure 14), comprising:
a solar panel having a shingled array structure (see Figure 14);
a first sealant (9) stacked on the solar panel to protect the solar panel (see Figure 3);
a second sealant (11) stacked below the solar panel to protect the solar panel (see Figure 3);
a front cover (1) stacked on the first sealant to transmit sunlight and protect the first sealant ([0046]); and
a first backsheet (12) stacked below the second sealant to protect the solar panel from an external environment ([0046]); and
a heat dissipation steel plate (2) formed on a bottom surface of the first backsheet to emit heat generated in the solar panel (it is inherent the steel back sheet would emit heat generated by the solar panel),
wherein the heat dissipation steel plate is provided as a zinc-coated steel plate disposed at an outermost bottom side of the high-output shingled photovoltaic module (it is disclosed the back sheet material 2 can be galvanized steel ([0043]), which is commonly known as zinc coated steel; see Figure 3), and
and the front cover is provided by bonding a flexible transparent moisture barrier sheet such as a fluoropolymer instead of glass ([0061]) to the first sealant (see Figure 3), such that the high-output shingled photovoltaic module is usable as an exterior design element of a building through an increase in esthetics (it is disclosed the photovoltaic module acts as a roofing shingle, as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose the front cover is a patterned ethylene-chloro-tri-fluoro ethylene (ECTFE) film.
Gaume discloses a lightweight photovoltaic module, wherein the first layer can be made of a textured polymer material such as ECTFE (page 6), where the photovoltaic module can be used in buildings as a roof, signage, or street furniture (page 2), which means the photovoltaic module has a certain esthetic to be used for such purposes.
As Pearce is not limited to any specific examples of fluoropolymer flexible transparent sheets to be used as a front cover and as an ECTFE textured polymer material as a front cover for a photovoltaic module that can be used in buildings as a roof or signage was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Gaume above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable polymer material, including a textured ECTFE polymer material in the device of Pearce. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result, and because the polymer material is suitable to provide protection and transparency as well as reducing the overall weight of the solar module, as set forth by Gaume.
It is noted that while not expressly disclosed by modified Pearce, it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that textured front covers reduce reflectance as it increases the concentration of impinging light on the surface of a solar module.
Regarding claim 6, modified Pearce discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a first adhesive layer (13) provided to bond the first backsheet and the heat dissipation steel plate (see Figure 3); and a junction box is provided on a rear surface of the heat dissipation steel plate ([0002]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Pearce discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first sealant, the second sealant, and the first bonding layer are each formed of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) or a poly olefin elastomer (POE) for interlayer bonding ([0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Pearce’s single-piece metal back sheet does not teach a two-layer architecture. However, it is unclear where the claims require a two-layer architecture. It is noted the claim has only recited “a heat dissipation steel plate formed on a bottom surface of the first backsheet” and makes no mentioning of a two-layer architecture as asserted.
It is unclear if Applicant is reading the “back sheet material 2” of Pearce as the claimed “first backsheet” instead of the “heat dissipation steel plate” as outlined in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5/7/2026. It is further noted that the Non-Final Office Action also clearly indicated the “first backsheet” as claimed to be read by layer 12 of Pearce.
Applicant further argues that Pearce’s metal back sheet is not disposed as a separate heat dissipation steel plate at an outermost bottom side of a two-layer back-side architecture because it is disclosed by Pearce to serve to provide an environment seal against moisture and structural support and not to dissipate heat to an external environment. However, it is unclear why Pearce’s metal back sheet is not a separate heat dissipation steel plate at an outermost bottom side as claimed, as set forth above. Additionally, the fact Pearce does not explicitly state the steel plate is used to dissipate heat to an external environment does not mean the steel plate is not capable of performing the function. "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed that an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See MPEP 2145 II.
Applicant further argues that Pearce discourages substituting the glass top sheet of a silicon module with a flexible polymeric cover because Pearce states in paragraph [0061] that silicon solar cells are too fragile. However, the claims do not require any particular solar cell type and Pearce does not teach away from using polymer top sheets in place of glass top sheets at all and states that CIGS can be used on flexible substrates in paragraph [0061]. Additionally, paragraph [0061] is referring to a flexible substrate, which is not the same as a top sheet.
Applicant’s further argument that Pearce does not teach the claimed shingled array structure in claim 5 because the present application requires divided cell strips whose front and back electrodes are bonded and connected with an electrically conductive adhesive was not found to be persuasive because it is not directed to the invention as claimed, contrary to what Applicant believes.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claim(s) 5-7 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
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
Prosecution Insights