DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed October 8, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed October 8, 2025, the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent June 10, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 depends on canceled claim 5. Amending claim 6 to depend on claim 1 would overcome the rejection.
Claim 7 depends on canceled claim 5. Amending claim 7 to depend on claim 1 would overcome the rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida (JP 2007157980 A included in Applicant submitted IDS filed July 23, 2024) in view of Temchenko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0146762 A1), Aria et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0247545 A1), and Wheeler (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0302400 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 3, and 6, Iida discloses a solar cell comprising:
a first solar cell panel (such as 43, Fig. 5);
a second solar cell panel of a light transmitting type disposed to face a light receiving surface of the first solar cell panel (such as second solar cell panel 42 depicted in Fig. 5 as disposed to face a top light receiving surface of the cited first solar cell panel 43 cited to read on the claimed “light transmitting type” because it transmits light to the cited first solar cell panel 43);
a first sealing layer stacked on the second solar cell panel from a side opposite to the first solar cell panel (such as 50 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on the cited second solar cell panel 42 from a top side opposite to the cited first solar cell panel 43);
a second sealing layer disposed between the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel, stacked to be in direct contact with the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel (such as second sealing layer 50 depicted in Fig. 5 as disposed between and stacked in direct contact with the cited first solar cell panel 43 and the cited second solar cell panel 42);
a third sealing layer stacked on the first solar cell panel from a side opposite to the second sealing layer (such as 100 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on the cited first solar panel 43 from a bottom side opposite to the cited second sealing layer 50); and
a first protective member stacked on the first sealing layer from a side opposite to the second solar cell panel (such as a first protective member 20 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on, or above or in close proximity to, the cited first sealing layer 50 from a top side opposite to the cited second solar cell panel 42); wherein
the first sealing layer, the second sealing layer, and the third sealing layer are films formed of at least one material selected from the group consisting of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a polyolefin-based resin, and an ionomer-based resin (see [0018] teaching “EVA”).
Iida does not disclose wherein the first sealing layer has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less, the second sealing layer has a thickness of 30 µm or more and 400 µm or less, the third sealing layer has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less, and the first protective member has a thickness of 25 µm or more and 200 µm or less.
However, the thicknesses of the cited first, second, and third sealing layers and cited first protective layer are result effective variables and Temchenko et al. teaches the MVTR is a function of the thickness (see [0041] exemplifying a thickness of 100 µm).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thicknesses of the first, second, and third sealing layer and cited first protective layer in the solar cell of Iida and arrive at the claimed ranges of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the MVTR of the solar cell.
Iida, as modified above, teaches wherein the second sealing layer has a thickness of 30 µm or more and 400 µm or less, which includes a thickness of 100 µm, but does not teach a thickness of the first solar cell panel is 100 µm or more and 150 µm or less and a thickness of the second solar cell panel is 30 µm or more and 150 µm or less providing for the claimed range of “wherein a thickness at a portion at which the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel overlap each other when viewed in a normal direction of the light receiving surface of the first solar cell panel is 350 µm or more and 1140 µm or less”.
However, the thicknesses of the first and second solar cell panels are result effective variables and Aria et al. teaches the thickness directly affects the material cost and flexibility of the solar cell panel (see [0013] and [0039]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thicknesses of the first and second solar cell panels in the solar cell of Iida, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the material cost and flexibility of the solar cell panels.
Iida does not disclose wherein the first protective member is a light-transmitting film containing at least one of a fluorine-based resin and weather-resistant polyethylene terephthalate.
However, Wheeler discloses a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a first protective member 140 can be formed of a glass and/or polyethylene terephthalate (see [0057] wherein the selection of “or a plastic such as polyethylene terephthalate” provides for a light-transmitting single-layer film).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the glass and polyethylene terephthalate material or just polyethylene terephthalate material disclosed in Wheeler for the material of the first protective member of Iida because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a material for a first protective member in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 8, independent claim 1 is obvious over Iida in view of Temchenko et al., Aria et al., and Wheeler under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Iida discloses wherein
the first solar cell panel has an indirect transition type semiconductor layer (the cited first solar cell panel 43, Fig. 5 of silicon semiconductor material is cited to read on the claimed “indirect transition type semiconductor layer” because it indirectly receives light from the cited second solar cell panel 42), and wherein
the second solar cell panel has a direct transition type semiconductor layer (the cited second solar cell panel 42, Fig. 5 of silicon semiconductor material is cited to read on the claimed “direct transition type semiconductor layer” because it receives light directly without passing through the cited first solar cell panel 43).
With regard to claim 11, independent claim 1 is obvious over Iida in view of Temchenko et al., Aria et al., and Wheeler under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Iida discloses wherein
the first solar cell panel has a first photovoltaic cell (the cited first solar cell panel 42, Fig. 5 has a first photovoltaic cell of silicon semiconductor material), wherein
the second solar cell panel has a transmission type second photovoltaic cell (the cited second solar cell panel 41, Fig. 5 having a second photovoltaic cell of silicon semiconductor material which is cited to read on the claimed “transmission type” because it transmits light to the cited first solar cell panel 42), and wherein
the second photovoltaic cell overlaps the first photovoltaic cell in a plan view (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited second photovoltaic cell 41 overlaps the cited first photovoltaic cell 42 in a plan view).
With regard to claim 12, dependent claim 11 is obvious over Iida in view of Temchenko et al., Aria et al., and Wheeler under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Iida discloses wherein
the first solar cell panel has an indirect transition type semiconductor layer (the cited first solar cell panel 43, Fig. 5 of silicon semiconductor material is cited to read on the claimed “indirect transition type semiconductor layer” because it indirectly receives light from the cited second solar cell panel 42), and wherein
the second solar cell panel has a direct transition type semiconductor layer (the cited second solar cell panel 42, Fig. 5 of silicon semiconductor material is cited to read on the claimed “direct transition type semiconductor layer” because it receives light directly without passing through the cited first solar cell panel 43).
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida (JP 2007157980 A included in Applicant submitted IDS filed July 23, 2024) in view of Temchenko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0146762 A1), Aria et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0247545 A1), and Sugiyama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0312164 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 3, and 7, Iida discloses a solar cell comprising:
a first solar cell panel (such as 43, Fig. 5);
a second solar cell panel of a light transmitting type disposed to face a light receiving surface of the first solar cell panel (such as second solar cell panel 42 depicted in Fig. 5 as disposed to face a top light receiving surface of the cited first solar cell panel 43 cited to read on the claimed “light transmitting type” because it transmits light to the cited first solar cell panel 43);
a first sealing layer stacked on the second solar cell panel from a side opposite to the first solar cell panel (such as 50 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on the cited second solar cell panel 42 from a top side opposite to the cited first solar cell panel 43);
a second sealing layer disposed between the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel, stacked to be in direct contact with the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel (such as second sealing layer 50 depicted in Fig. 5 as disposed between and stacked in direct contact with the cited first solar cell panel 43 and the cited second solar cell panel 42);
a third sealing layer stacked on the first solar cell panel from a side opposite to the second sealing layer (such as 100 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on the cited first solar panel 43 from a bottom side opposite to the cited second sealing layer 50); and
a first protective member stacked on the first sealing layer from a side opposite to the second solar cell panel (such as a first protective member 20 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on, or above or in close proximity to, the cited first sealing layer 50 from a top side opposite to the cited second solar cell panel 42); wherein
the first sealing layer, the second sealing layer, and the third sealing layer are films formed of at least one material selected from the group consisting of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a polyolefin-based resin, and an ionomer-based resin (see [0018] teaching “EVA”).
Iida does not disclose wherein the first sealing layer has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less, the second sealing layer has a thickness of 30 µm or more and 400 µm or less, the third sealing layer has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less, and the first protective member has a thickness of 25 µm or more and 200 µm or less.
However, the thicknesses of the cited first, second, and third sealing layers and cited first protective layer are result effective variables and Temchenko et al. teaches the MVTR is a function of the thickness (see [0041] exemplifying a thickness of 100 µm).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thicknesses of the first, second, and third sealing layer and cited first protective layer in the solar cell of Iida and arrive at the claimed ranges of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the MVTR of the solar cell.
Iida, as modified above, teaches wherein the second sealing layer has a thickness of 30 µm or more and 400 µm or less, which includes a thickness of 100 µm, but does not teach a thickness of the first solar cell panel is 100 µm or more and 150 µm or less and a thickness of the second solar cell panel is 30 µm or more and 150 µm or less providing for the claimed range of “wherein a thickness at a portion at which the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel overlap each other when viewed in a normal direction of the light receiving surface of the first solar cell panel is 350 µm or more and 1140 µm or less”.
However, the thicknesses of the first and second solar cell panels are result effective variables and Aria et al. teaches the thickness directly affects the material cost and flexibility of the solar cell panel (see [0013] and [0039]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thicknesses of the first and second solar cell panels in the solar cell of Iida, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the material cost and flexibility of the solar cell panels.
Iida does not disclose wherein the first protective member is a light-transmitting film containing at least one of a fluorine-based resin and weather-resistant polyethylene terephthalate.
However, Sugiyama et al. discloses a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a first protective member 10 can be formed by at least one material selected from the group consisting of glass…PTFE…PET (see [0057] wherein the selection of glass, PTFE, and PET provides for a light-transmitting multi-layer film).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the glass, PTFE, and PET material disclosed in Sugiyama et al. for the material of the first protective member of Iida because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a material for a first protective member in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida (JP 2007157980 A included in Applicant submitted IDS filed July 23, 2024) in view of Peharz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0279407 A1), Temchenko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0146762 A1), Aria et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0247545 A1), and Wheeler (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0302400 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 4, and 6, Iida discloses a solar cell comprising:
a first solar cell panel (such as 42, Fig. 5);
a second solar cell panel of a light transmitting type disposed to face a light receiving surface of the first solar cell panel (such as second solar cell panel 41 depicted in Fig. 5 as disposed to face a top light receiving surface of the cited first solar cell panel 42 cited to read on the claimed “light transmitting type” because it transmits light to the cited first solar cell panel 42);
a first sealing layer stacked on the second solar cell panel from a side opposite to the first solar cell panel (such as 20 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on the cited second solar cell panel 41 from a top side opposite to the cited first solar cell panel 42);
a second sealing layer disposed between the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel, stacked to be in direct contact with the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel (such as second sealing layer 50 depicted in Fig. 5 as disposed between and stacked in direct contact with the cited first solar cell panel 42 and the cited second solar cell panel 41);
a third sealing layer stacked on the first solar cell panel from a side opposite to the second sealing layer (such as 50 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on the cited first solar panel 42 from a bottom side opposite to the cited second sealing layer 50); and
a first protective member stacked on the first sealing layer from a side opposite to the second solar cell panel (such as a first protective member 10 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on, or above or in close proximity to, the cited first sealing layer 20 from a top side opposite to the cited second solar cell panel 41), further comprising
a second protective member stacked on the third sealing layer from a side opposite to the first protective member (such as 100 depicted in Fig. 5 as stacked on the cited third sealing layer 50 from a bottom side opposite to the cited first protective member 10); wherein
the first sealing layer, the second sealing layer, and the third sealing layer are films formed of at least one material selected from the group consisting of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a polyolefin-based resin, and an ionomer-based resin (see [0018] teaching “EVA”).
Iida does not disclose wherein the first protective member has a thickness of 25 µm or more and 200 µm or less.
However, the thickness of the first protective member is a result effective variable and Peharz et al. teaches the thickness directly affects the strength and transmission of the member (see [0018]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thickness of the first protective member in the solar cell of Iida and arrive at the claimed range of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the strength and transmission of the first protective member.
Iida does not disclose wherein the first sealing layer has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less, the second sealing layer has a thickness of 30 µm or more and 400 µm or less, the third sealing layer has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less, and the second protective member has a thickness of 25 µm or more and 200 µm or less.
However, the thicknesses of the cited first, second, and third sealing layers and cited second protective member are result effective variables and Temchenko et al. teaches the MVTR is a function of the thickness (see [0041] exemplifying a thickness of 100 µm).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thicknesses of the first, second, and third sealing layers and second protective member in the solar cell of Iida and arrive at the claimed ranges of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the MVTR of the solar cell.
Iida, as modified above, teaches wherein the second sealing layer has a thickness of 30 µm or more and 400 µm or less, which includes a thickness of 100 µm, but does not teach a thickness of the first solar cell panel is 100 µm or more and 150 µm or less and a thickness of the second solar cell panel is 30 µm or more and 150 µm or less providing for the claimed ranges of “wherein a thickness at a portion at which the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel overlap each other when viewed in a normal direction of the light receiving surface of the first solar cell panel is 350 µm or more and 1140 µm or less” and “is 375 µm or more and 1290 µm or less”.
However, the thicknesses of the first and second solar cell panels are result effective variables and Aria et al. teaches the thickness directly affects the material cost and flexibility of the solar cell panel (see [0013] and [0039]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thicknesses of the first and second solar cell panels in the solar cell of Iida, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the material cost and flexibility of the solar cell panels.
Iida does not disclose wherein the first protective member is a light-transmitting film containing at least one of a fluorine-based resin and weather-resistant polyethylene terephthalate.
However, Wheeler discloses a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a first protective member 140 can be formed of a glass and/or polyethylene terephthalate (see [0057] wherein the selection of “or a plastic such as polyethylene terephthalate” provides for a light-transmitting single-layer film).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the glass and polyethylene terephthalate material or just polyethylene terephthalate material disclosed in Wheeler for the material of the first protective member of Iida because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a material for a first protective member in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 8, independent claim 1 is obvious over Iida in view of Peharz et al., Temchenko et al., Aria et al., and Wheeler under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Iida discloses wherein
the first solar cell panel has an indirect transition type semiconductor layer (the cited first solar cell panel 42, Fig. 5 of silicon semiconductor material is cited to read on the claimed “indirect transition type semiconductor layer” because it indirectly receives light from the cited second solar cell panel 41), and wherein
the second solar cell panel has a direct transition type semiconductor layer (the cited second solar cell panel 41, Fig. 5 of silicon semiconductor material is cited to read on the claimed “direct transition type semiconductor layer” because it receives light directly without passing through the cited first solar cell panel 42).
With regard to claim 11, independent claim 1 is obvious over Iida in view of Peharz et al., Temchenko et al., Aria et al., and Wheeler under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Iida discloses wherein
the first solar cell panel has a first photovoltaic cell (the cited first solar cell panel 42, Fig. 5 has a first photovoltaic cell of silicon semiconductor material), wherein
the second solar cell panel has a transmission type second photovoltaic cell (the cited second solar cell panel 41, Fig. 5 having a second photovoltaic cell of silicon semiconductor material which is cited to read on the claimed “transmission type” because it transmits light to the cited first solar cell panel 42), and wherein
the second photovoltaic cell overlaps the first photovoltaic cell in a plan view (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited second photovoltaic cell 41 overlaps the cited first photovoltaic cell 42 in a plan view).
With regard to claim 12, dependent claim 11 is obvious over Iida in view of Peharz et al., Temchenko et al., Aria et al., and Wheeler under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Iida discloses wherein
the first solar cell panel has an indirect transition type semiconductor layer (the cited first solar cell panel 42, Fig. 5 of silicon semiconductor material is cited to read on the claimed “indirect transition type semiconductor layer” because it indirectly receives light from the cited second solar cell panel 41), and wherein
the second solar cell panel has a direct transition type semiconductor layer (the cited second solar cell panel 41, Fig. 5 of silicon semiconductor material is cited to read on the claimed “direct transition type semiconductor layer” because it receives light directly without passing through the cited first solar cell panel 42).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida (JP 2007157980 A included in Applicant submitted IDS filed July 23, 2024) in view of Peharz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0279407 A1), Temchenko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0146762 A1), Aria et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0247545 A1), Horie et al. (CN 104822528 A), and Sugiyama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0312164 A1).
With regard to claims 9 and 10, Iida discloses a solar cell manufacturing method, wherein
a second solar cell panel of a light transmitting type is disposed to face a light receiving surface of the first solar cell panel (as depicted in Fig. 5, a second solar cell panel 41 disposed to face a top light receiving surface of a first solar cell panel 42 cited to read on the claimed “light transmitting type” because it transmits light to the cited first solar cell panel 42), wherein
a first sealing member selected from the group consisting of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a polyolefin-based resin, and an ionomer-based resin and overlaps the second solar cell panel from a side opposite to the first solar cell panel (as depicted in Fig. 5, a first sealing member 20 overlaps the cited second solar cell panel 41 from a top side opposite to the cited first solar cell panel 42; see [0018] teaching EVA), wherein
a second sealing member selected from the group consisting of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a polyolefin-based resin, and an ionomer-based resin and overlaps the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel between the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel (as depicted in Fig. 5, a second sealing member 50 overlaps the cited first solar cell panel 42 and the cited second solar cell panel 41 between the first solar cell panel 42 and the second solar cell panel 41; see [0018] teaching EVA), wherein
a third sealing member selected from the group consisting of an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, a polyolefin-based resin, and an ionomer-based resin and overlaps the first solar cell panel from a side opposite to the second sealing member (as depicted in Fig. 5, a third sealing member 50 overlaps the cited first solar cell panel 42 from a bottom side opposite to the cited second sealing member 50; see [0018] teaching EVA), wherein
a first protective member overlaps the first sealing member from a side opposite to the second solar cell panel (as depicted in Fig. 5, a first protective member 10 overlaps the cited first sealing member 20 from a top side opposite to the cited second solar cell panel 41), and wherein
the first solar cell panel, the second solar cell panel, the first sealing member, the second sealing member, the third sealing member, and the first protective member are joined to each other (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited first solar cell panel 42, the cited second solar cell panel 42, the cited first sealing member 20, the cited second sealing member 50, the cited third sealing member 50, and the cited first protective member 10 are joined to each other).
Iida does not disclose wherein the first protective member has a thickness of 25 µm or more and 200 µm or less.
However, the thickness of the first protective member is a result effective variable and Peharz et al. teaches the thickness directly affects the strength and transmission of the member (see [0018]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thickness of the first protective member in the solar cell of Iida and arrive at the claimed range of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the strength and transmission of the first protective member.
Iida does not disclose wherein the first sealing member has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less, the second sealing member has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less, and the third sealing member has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less.
However, the thicknesses of the cited first, second, and third sealing members are result effective variables and Temchenko et al. teaches the MVTR is a function of the thickness (see [0041] exemplifying a thickness of 100 µm).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thicknesses of the first, second, and third sealing members in the solar cell of Iida and arrive at the claimed ranges of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the MVTR of the solar cell.
Iida, as modified above, teaches wherein the second sealing member has a thickness of 50 µm or more and 400 µm or less, which includes a thickness of 100 µm, but does not teach a thickness of the first solar cell panel is 100 µm or more and 150 µm or less and a thickness of the second solar cell panel is 30 µm or more and 150 µm or less providing for the claimed range of “a thickness at a portion at which the first solar cell panel and the second solar cell panel overlap each other when viewed in a normal direction of the light receiving surface of the first solar cell panel is 350 µm or more and 1140 µm or less”.
However, the thicknesses of the first and second solar cell panels are result effective variables and Aria et al. teaches the thickness directly affects the material cost and flexibility of the solar cell panel (see [0013] and [0039]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thicknesses of the first and second solar cell panels in the solar cell of Iida, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges of thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the material cost and flexibility of the solar cell panels.
Iida does not disclose wherein the first protective member is a light-transmitting film containing at least one of a fluorine-based resin and weather-resistant polyethylene terephthalate.
However, Sugiyama et al. discloses a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a first protective member 10 can be formed by at least one material selected from the group consisting of glass…PTFE…PET (see [0057] wherein the selection of glass, PTFE, and PET provides for a light-transmitting multi-layer film).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the glass, PTFE, and PET material disclosed in Sugiyama et al. for the material of the first protective member of Iida because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a material for a first protective member in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Iida, as modified above, teaches a first protective member (recall 10, Fig. 5, as modified above to include the cited glass, PTFE, and PET material) and teaches a lamination technique of the stack body but does not specifically teach a heating step by brining the stacked body into contact with a heated glass body.
However, Horie et al. discloses a solar cell manufacturing method (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a lamination technique including a step of heating by brining a stacked body in contact with a heated glass body (see [0416]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the lamination technique of Iida for the lamination technique of Horie et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case a lamination technique for a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the newly added claimed limitations are not found within the previously cited prior art references. However, this argument is addressed in the rejection of the claims above.
Applicant argues that the claimed thickness ranges provide unexpected results. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the claimed ranges of thickness (see MPEP 716.02(d).
Furthermore, Temchenko et al. already exemplifies 100 microns (falling within each claimed range for thickness), which necessarily would include the same result which is not unexpected.
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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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 at (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 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 December 12, 2025