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 May 14th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The objection to claim 15 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(a) rejections of claims 21-23 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(a) rejections of claims 24-25 are maintained.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 9-16, and 24-25 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Jutteau et al. are maintained.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-12, 15-16, and 24-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 10 & 28, Applicant recites, “an inverter connected directly to the first positive node of the first plurality of thin film photovoltaic modules, directly to the first negative node of the first plurality of thin film photovoltaic modules, directly to the second positive node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules, and directly to the second negative node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules”. Applicant’s attention is directed to Annotated Fig. 10 of the Instant Application below, the inverter 1030 has four outputs, where the first output is connected to a distinct photovoltaic module that isn’t explicitly disclose as being the first or second plurality of thin film photovoltaic modules, the second output is connected to a distinct photovoltaic module that isn’t explicitly disclose as being the first or second plurality of thin film photovoltaic module, the third output is connected to a distinct photovoltaic module that isn’t explicitly disclose as being the first or second plurality of thin film photovoltaic module, and the fourth output is connected to a distinct photovoltaic module that isn’t explicitly disclose as being the first or second plurality of thin film photovoltaic module (See Annotated Fig. 10 of the Instant Application, below & Paragraph 0113 of the US PGPub of the Instant Application).
Accordingly, the claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate action is required.
Annotated Fig. 10 of the Instant Application
PNG
media_image1.png
694
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding newly submitted Claim 24, Applicant recites, “the first operating voltage is within 5 percent of the second operating voltage when measured at a nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT) condition”. Applicant has not disclosed the operating voltage are within this percentages explicitly when associated with a NOCT condition. Accordingly, the claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding newly submitted Claim 25, Applicant recites, “the first operating voltage is within 3 percent of the second operating voltage when measured at a nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT) condition”. Applicant has not disclosed the operating voltage are within this percentages explicitly when associated with a NOCT condition. Accordingly, the claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Regarding Claim 27, Applicant recites, “a first electrode” and “a third electrode”. There is no recitation of a second electrode rendering the recitation of a third electrode indefinite as its unclear if a second electrode is required based on this phrasing. Appropriate action is required.
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 *** are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) s being anticipated by Jutteau et al. (US 2023/0421094 A1)
In view of Claim 27, Jutteau et al. discloses a photovoltaic device assembly (Fig. 9C), comprising:
a first plurality of photovoltaic modules (Fig. 9C, #53a-b & Paragraph 0100);
a second plurality of second photovoltaic modules (Fig. 9C, #100e-f & Paragraph 0100);
a first electrical circuit comprising the first plurality of the first photovoltaic modules (Fig. 9C, #67 & Paragraph 0100), wherein the first plurality of the first photovoltaic modules are connected in series (Fig. 9C, #67 & Paragraph 0100);
the first photovoltaic modules comprise a plurality of first photovoltaic cells (Figs. 5A-D, the perovskite additional module is placed on the existing panel on the illuminated face of the existing panel, thus corresponding to first photovoltaic modules #53a-b in Fig. 9C); that comprise an absorber layer that comprises a first material that has a first optical bandgap (Paragraph 0068 – perovskite band gap energy between 1.2 and 1.9 eV);
a second electrical circuit comprising a second plurality of the second photovoltaic modules (Fig. 9C, #68 & Paragraph 0100), wherein the second plurality of the second photovoltaic modules are connected in series (Fig. 9C, #68 & Paragraph 0100);
the second photovoltaic modules comprise a plurality of second photovoltaic cells that comprise an absorber layer that comprises a second material that has a second optical bandgap that is less than the first optical bandgap (Paragraph 0068 – perovskite band gap energy can be between 1.2 and 1.9 eV while existing silicon panels of mono or polycrystalline have band gap energies on the order of 1.1 eV);
wherein the first electrical circuit and the second electrical circuit are connected in parallel (Fig. 9C, #69-#70 – Paragraph 0100 the pair of existing panels 100e-f are connected in parallel to the pair of complementary panel modules 53a-b);
during operation a first operating voltage generated by the first electrical circuit is different from a second operating voltage generated by the second electrical circuit (Abstract & Paragraph 0009 – the first and second electrical circuit are configured to operate within ±10% of each other’s operating voltages);
a first plurality of first photovoltaic cells within the first plurality of first photovoltaic modules comprise a first set of first photovoltaic cells and a second set of first photovoltaic cells wherein the first set of first photovoltaic cells is serially electrically connected in a first direction between a first electrode and a common electrode (Fig. 1 & Paragraph 0084 – the strips of cells being composed of cells connected in series along a direction, the strips of cells of first or second sets of cells zigzag in opposite directions via #110, the common electrode is either V- or V+ - See also Fig. 9C, where serially connected cells 53a are connected via 67, the adjacent strip (not shown) would be connected via the zigzagged opposite direction via #110 shown in Fig. 1).
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 1-4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutteau et al. (US 2023/0421094 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Jutteau et al. discloses a photovoltaic device assembly (Fig. 9C), comprising:
a first plurality of photovoltaic modules (Fig. 9C, #53a-b & Paragraph 0100);
a second plurality of second photovoltaic modules (Fig. 9C, #100e-f & Paragraph 0100);
a first electrical circuit comprising the first plurality of the first photovoltaic modules (Fig. 9C, #67 & Paragraph 0100), wherein the first plurality of the first photovoltaic modules are connected in series (Fig. 9C, #67 & Paragraph 0100);
the first photovoltaic modules comprise a plurality of first photovoltaic cells (Figs. 5A-D, the perovskite additional module is placed on the existing panel on the illuminated face of the existing panel, thus corresponding to first photovoltaic modules #53a-b in Fig. 9C); that comprise an absorber layer that comprises a first material that has a first optical bandgap (Paragraph 0068 – perovskite band gap energy between 1.2 and 1.9 eV);
a second electrical circuit comprising a second plurality of the second photovoltaic modules (Fig. 9C, #68 & Paragraph 0100), wherein the second plurality of the second photovoltaic modules are connected in series (Fig. 9C, #68 & Paragraph 0100);
the second photovoltaic modules comprise a plurality of second photovoltaic cells that comprise an absorber layer that comprises a second material that has a second optical bandgap that is less than the first optical bandgap (Paragraph 0068 – perovskite band gap energy can be between 1.2 and 1.9 eV while existing silicon panels of mono or polycrystalline have band gap energies on the order of 1.1 eV);
wherein the first electrical circuit and the second electrical circuit are connected in parallel (Fig. 9C, #69-#70 – Paragraph 0100 the pair of existing panels 100e-f are connected in parallel to the pair of complementary panel modules 53a-b);
during operation a first operating voltage generated by the first electrical circuit is different from a second operating voltage generated by the second electrical circuit (Abstract & Paragraph 0009 – the first and second electrical circuit are configured to operate within ±10% of each other’s operating voltages);
In regards to the limitation that, “each first photovoltaic module of the first plurality of photovoltaic modules comprises 6, 7, 8 or 9 groups, or greater than 9 groups of series connected first photovoltaic cells, and each second photovoltaic module of the second plurality of second photovoltaic modules comprises 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 groups of series connected second photovoltaic cells”. Jutteau et al. discloses that while there can be at least 4 groups of series connected second photovoltaic module (Fig. 5B & Paragraph 0091). Jutteau et al. discloses existing panel having a width l and a length L and said plurality Q of photovoltaic cells of the second type being arranged parallel to the width l of the existing panel, said method comprises one or more steps of: determining the maximum power point voltage VMPP of the existing panel or of the group of existing panels when they are combined with the additional module (Paragraph 0022-0023), calculating the number N′1 of photovoltaic cells of the second type to be placed in series to create a sub-module S′1 of the additional module that is suitable for supplying said voltage V1 (Paragraph 0024), and the power of the module and the coverage of the existing panel are thus optimized according to the voltage VMPP of the existing panel, with cells of the module having a width close to the length of the existing panel (Paragraph 0027). Jutteau et al. discloses that this optimization method is for existing panels of silicon (same as Applicant’s) that have additional modules (also same type of materials as Applicant’s perovskite) such that the optimization method which includes determining in step 1 an operating voltage VMPP of an existing panel having P cells of a first type, for example cells based on crystalline silicon, producing in step 2 an additional module 10 comprising a second plurality Q of cells of the second type and having a different band gap width than the cells of the existing panel, configured to supply an operating voltage V1 equal, to within ±10%, to voltage VMPP of said panel or of said group of existing panels, positioning in step 3 the additional module in an overlapping manner on or under the existing panel, the module being connected in parallel to said existing panel or to said group of existing panels. For the production of the structured cells of the module, the starting point is the width l and the length L of the panel and we choose whether the plurality Q of cells is arranged parallel to the length L of the existing panel or to its width (Paragraph 0077), and In step 21, the maximum power point voltage VMPP of the existing panel combined with the additional module is then determined, in step 22, the number N of cells to be connected in series is calculated in order to produce a sub-module S1 of the additional module that is suitable for supplying said voltage V1 (Paragraph 0078-0079) and in step 23 a height Hcell of said cells of the sub-module S1 is calculated, and in step 24 the number M1 of sub-modules S1 that can be fitted in parallel over the width l of the existing panel is calculated, maximizing the power of said module overlapping the existing panel, at voltage V1. It should be noted that steps 23 and 24 are interdependent. Several combinations can exist but the one that allows delivering the maximum amount of power is chosen (Paragraph 0080).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrive at the limitations, ““each first photovoltaic module of the first plurality of photovoltaic modules comprises 6, 7, 8 or 9 groups, or greater than 9 groups of series connected first photovoltaic cells, and each second photovoltaic module of the second plurality of second photovoltaic modules comprises 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 groups of series connected second photovoltaic cells” because the general conditions of the claim are known, that being how to calculate an optimized number of first photovoltaic cells in a first photovoltaic module that are overlying second photovoltaic cells in a second photovoltaic module, and its not considered inventive to discover the optimum number of these cells by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
In view of Claim 3, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jutteau et al. teaches that the first optical band gap ranges from between 1.2 and 1.9 eV (Paragraph 0068 – perovskite band gap energy between 1.2 and 1.9 eV).
In view of Claim 8, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jutteau et al. teaches that the first plurality of the first photovoltaic modules of the first electrical circuit comprise a first number of first photovoltaic cells (Fig. 4 & Paragraph 0083 – 184 cells); the second plurality of the second photovoltaic modules of the second electrical comprise a second number of second photovoltaic cells which can be greater than the first number of photovoltaic cells. (Fig. 3 & Paragraph 0074 – well over 200 individual cells in this configuration)
In view of Claim 9, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jutteau et al. discloses each of the first plurality of the first photovoltaic modules comprise a plurality of photovoltaic cells (Fig. 4 & Paragraph 0083).
In view of Claim 29, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 27. In regards to the limitation that, “each first photovoltaic module of the first plurality of photovoltaic modules comprises 6, 7, 8 or 9 groups, or greater than 9 groups of series connected first photovoltaic cells, and each second photovoltaic module of the second plurality of second photovoltaic modules comprises 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 groups of series connected second photovoltaic cells”. Jutteau et al. discloses that while there can be at least 4 groups of series connected second photovoltaic module (Fig. 5B & Paragraph 0091). Jutteau et al. discloses existing panel having a width l and a length L and said plurality Q of photovoltaic cells of the second type being arranged parallel to the width l of the existing panel, said method comprises one or more steps of: determining the maximum power point voltage VMPP of the existing panel or of the group of existing panels when they are combined with the additional module (Paragraph 0022-0023), calculating the number N′1 of photovoltaic cells of the second type to be placed in series to create a sub-module S′1 of the additional module that is suitable for supplying said voltage V1 (Paragraph 0024), and the power of the module and the coverage of the existing panel are thus optimized according to the voltage VMPP of the existing panel, with cells of the module having a width close to the length of the existing panel (Paragraph 0027). Jutteau et al. discloses that this optimization method is for existing panels of silicon (same as Applicant’s) that have additional modules (also same type of materials as Applicant’s perovskite) such that the optimization method which includes determining in step 1 an operating voltage VMPP of an existing panel having P cells of a first type, for example cells based on crystalline silicon, producing in step 2 an additional module 10 comprising a second plurality Q of cells of the second type and having a different band gap width than the cells of the existing panel, configured to supply an operating voltage V1 equal, to within ±10%, to voltage VMPP of said panel or of said group of existing panels, positioning in step 3 the additional module in an overlapping manner on or under the existing panel, the module being connected in parallel to said existing panel or to said group of existing panels. For the production of the structured cells of the module, the starting point is the width l and the length L of the panel and we choose whether the plurality Q of cells is arranged parallel to the length L of the existing panel or to its width (Paragraph 0077), and In step 21, the maximum power point voltage VMPP of the existing panel combined with the additional module is then determined, in step 22, the number N of cells to be connected in series is calculated in order to produce a sub-module S1 of the additional module that is suitable for supplying said voltage V1 (Paragraph 0078-0079) and in step 23 a height Hcell of said cells of the sub-module S1 is calculated, and in step 24 the number M1 of sub-modules S1 that can be fitted in parallel over the width l of the existing panel is calculated, maximizing the power of said module overlapping the existing panel, at voltage V1. It should be noted that steps 23 and 24 are interdependent. Several combinations can exist but the one that allows delivering the maximum amount of power is chosen (Paragraph 0080).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrive at the limitations, “each first photovoltaic module of the first plurality of photovoltaic modules comprises 6, 7, 8 or 9 groups, or greater than 9 groups of series connected first photovoltaic cells, and each second photovoltaic module of the second plurality of second photovoltaic modules comprises 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 groups of series connected second photovoltaic cells” because the general conditions of the claim are known, that being how to calculate an optimized number of first photovoltaic cells in a first photovoltaic module that are overlying second photovoltaic cells in a second photovoltaic module, and its not considered inventive to discover the optimum number of these cells by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutteau et al. (US 2023/0421094 A1) in view of Tomita (GB 2476736 A).
In view of Claim 6, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jutteau et al. teaches that the first photovoltaic cells of the first photovoltaic modules each have a first operating voltage during operating; the second photovoltaic cells of the second photovoltaic modules each have a second operating voltage during operation (Abstract & Paragraph 0009 – the first and second electrical circuit are configured to operate within ±10% of each other’s operating voltages).
Jutteau et al. discloses first photovoltaic cells of the first plurality of the first photovoltaic modules comprise a first number of first photovoltaic cells (Figs. 5A-D, #101-#106 six rows of cells – Paragraph 0090), second photovoltaic cells of the second plurality of the second photovoltaic modules comprise a second number of second photovoltaic cells (Fig. 1, #101-#106 – Paragraph 0074), but does not disclose an operating voltage of the first electrical circuit and the second electrical circuit is based on a least common multiple (LCM) of the first number of first photovoltaic cells and the second number of photovoltaic cells.
Tomita discloses operating voltages of a first electrical and a second electrical is based on a least common multiple of a first number of first photovoltaic cells and a second number of photovoltaic cells (Page 15, Lines 5-8, Page 23, Lines 12-22). Tomita discloses that output voltage is of modules are controlled appropriately so as to enhance conversion efficiency of a step-up voltage transformer (Page 23, Lines 13-18). Tomita discloses that this step is required for improving efficiency of semiconductors made of different kinds of materials that are stacked so as to utilize the band gaps of the semiconductors, however it is required to design the cells to maintain the current flow constant, otherwise the cells may suffer from a loss of power (Page 12, last paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have ensure that Jutteau et al. photovoltaic device assembly has an operating voltage of the first electrical circuit and the second electrical circuit based on a least common multiple (LCM) of the first number of first photovoltaic cells and the second number of photovoltaic cells for the advantages of improving efficiency by ensuring that the different cells do not suffer any power loss.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutteau et al. (US 2023/0421094 A1) in view of Tomita (GB 2476736 A) in view of Vtoman “How Many Volts Does a Solar Panel Generate?”
In view of Claim 7, Jutteau et al. and Tomita are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Modified Jutteau et al. is silent on the first and second number of second photovoltaic cells that have a LCM that is less than or equal to 50.
Vtoman discloses that typical operating voltages for solar panel systems are below 50V for small portable panels, RVs, small boats, small off-grid systems, standard residential panels, large panels for small commercial use, high-efficiency panels commonly used in commercial power systems to provided higher voltage and reduce energy loss, and larger commercial projects offering high voltage to support large scale energy demands (Page 2 - Table, 10W, 50W, 100W, 200W, 300W & 500W systems are all designed to be under 50V). Vtoman discloses that it is not uncommon for standard residential solar panels to operate at around 30 t0 50 V under full sun (Page 2, How Many Volts Does a Solar Panel Generate?). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use a LCM of the perovskite band gap energy and mono/polycrystalline silicon band gap energy of Jutteau et al. system such that the voltage range provided is under 50V (thus the LCM of the band gaps would be well under 50) as disclosed by Vtoman, such that the photovoltaic device assembly could be practically used in applications such as small portable panels, RVs, small boats, small off-grid systems, standard residential panels, large panels for small commercial use, high-efficiency panels commonly used in commercial power systems to provided higher voltage and reduce energy loss, and larger commercial projects offering high voltage to support large scale energy demands
Claims 5, 10-15, and 26, 28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutteau et al. (US 2023/0421094 A1) in view of Hadbi (US 2023/0074235 A1).
In view of Claim 5, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1., Jutteau et al. does not disclose the first operating voltage and the second operating voltage are less than a maximum voltage of an inverter, which is electrically coupled to ends of a parallel circuit formed by the parallel connection of the first electrical circuit and the second electrical circuit.
Hadbi discloses an inverter that is connected to all of the outputs of a tandem photovoltaic system (Fig. 12, #1000 & Paragraph 0066). Hadbi discloses that an inverter is used in conventional systems and controlled by a maximum power point tracker algorithm to make it possible to be as close as possible to a maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage (Paragraph 0052). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an inverter electrically coupled to ends of the parallel circuit formed by the parallel connection fo the first and second electrical circuit to ensure the photovoltaic device assembly is as close as possible to its maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage in this specific configuration of Jutteau.
Tycorun discloses that inverters come in various configurations, each designed for specific power systems and that the choice depends on the application, the size of the power system and the available power source (Page 5, What is the rated input voltage of an inverter?). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ensure that the inverter has a voltage rating great than the first operating voltage generated by the first circuit and a second operating voltage generated by the second circuit as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the appropriate inverter designed for the specific power source.
In view of Claims 10 & 30, Jutteau et al. discloses a photovoltaic device assembly (Fig. 9C), comprising:
a first circuit electrically connecting a first plurality of thin-film photovoltaic modules between a first positive node and a first negative node (Figs 5A-D, see positive and negative terminals associated with V1),
wherein the first plurality of thin-film photovoltaic modules (Figs. 5A-D, the perovskite additional module is placed on the existing panel on the illuminated face of the existing panel, thus corresponding to first photovoltaic modules #53a-b in Fig. 9A-C) comprise a first material with a first optical bandgap (Paragraph 0068 – perovskite band gap energy between 1.2 and 1.9 eV);
the first plurality of the thin-film photovoltaic modules are connected in parallel strings (Paragraph 0006 – they may be connected in parallel);
a second circuit electrically connecting a second plurality of photovoltaic modules (Figs. 9A-C, #100a-b & Paragraph 0100), between a second positive node and a second negative node (Fig. 1, see positive and negative terminals associated with V+ and V-),
the photovoltaic modules comprise a second material with a second optical bandgap that is less than the first optical band gap (Paragraph 0068 – perovskite band gap energy can be between 1.2 and 1.9 eV while existing silicon panels of mono or polycrystalline have band gap energies on the order of 1.1 eV);
where the second plurality of photovoltaic modules are connected in series (Paragraph 0006 – they may be connected in series);
one of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules is positioned to receive electromagnetic radiation transmitted through one of the thin-film photovoltaic modules (Figs. 5A-D, the perovskite additional module is placed on the existing panel on the illuminated face of the existing panel, see Fig. 7 and Figs. 9a-d).
Jutteau et al. does not disclose an inverter is connected to the first positive node, the first negative node, the second positive node, and the second negative node, wherein the inverter has a voltage rating that is greater than a first operating voltage generated by the first circuit and a second operating voltage generated by the second circuit
Hadbi discloses an inverter that is connected to all of the outputs of a tandem photovoltaic system (Fig. 12, #1000 & Paragraph 0066). Hadbi discloses that an inverter can be directly connected to the first positive node of a first plurality of thin-film photovoltaic modules, directly to the first negative node of the plurality of thin film photovoltaic modules, directly to the second positive node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules and directly to the second negative node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules (Fig. 20, #11 is directly connected to the “left” positive nodes of serially connected PV modules and directly connected to the “right” negative nodes of serially connected PV modules). Hadbi discloses that an inverter is used in conventional systems and controlled by a maximum power point tracker algorithm to make it possible to be as close as possible to a maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage (Paragraph 0052). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Jutteau et al. nodes be connected via an inverter as disclosed by Hadbi to ensure the photovoltaic device assembly is as close as possible to its maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage.
In view of Claim 11, Jutteau et al., and Hadbi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Jutteau et al. does not disclose that the corresponding absorber layers of the thin-film photovoltaic modules including the first material; portions of first contact layer; and portions of second contact layers, wherein portions of the corresponding absorber layers of the thin-film photovoltaic modules including the first material are disposed over the portions of the first contact layers and the portions of the second contact layers are disposed over the portions of the corresponding absorber layers of the thin-film photovoltaic modules including the first material.
Hadbi discloses that corresponding absorber layers are sandwiched between two contact layers (Fig. 3, the outer layers sandwich absorbing layer), and that this configuration is compatible with existing infrastructures accommodating cells with two connectors and thus simplification and backward compatibility is improved (Paragraph 0058). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to ensure the corresponding absorber layers of the thin-film photovoltaic modules including the first material; portions of first contact layer; and portions of second contact layers, wherein portions of the corresponding absorber layers of the thin-film photovoltaic modules including the first material are disposed over the portions of the first contact layers and the portions of the second contact layers are disposed over the portions of the corresponding absorber layers of the thin-film photovoltaic modules including the first material for the advantages of having a simplified and backward compatible structure.
In view of Claim 12, Jutteau et al., and Hadbi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Jutteau discloses that the first material includes a perovskite (Paragraph 0068) and the second material includes silicon (Paragraph 0074).
In view of Claim 13, Jutteau et al., and Hadbi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Jutteau discloses that the second material includes a silicon (Paragraph 0068).
In view of Claim 14, Jutteau et al., and Hadbi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Jutteau et al. discloses the first operating voltage is within 5 percent of the second operating voltage (Abstract & Paragraph 0009 – the first and second electrical circuit are configured to operate within ±10% of each other’s operating voltages).
In view of Claim 15, Jutteau et al., and Hadbi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Jutteau et al. teaches that the first circuit and the second circuit can be connected in parallel (Paragraph 0009).
In view of Claim 26, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jutteau et al. does not disclose an inverter is connected to the first positive node, the first negative node, the second positive node, and the second negative node, wherein the inverter has a voltage rating that is greater than a first operating voltage generated by the first circuit and a second operating voltage generated by the second circuit
Hadbi discloses an inverter that is connected to all of the outputs of a tandem photovoltaic system (Fig. 12, #1000 & Paragraph 0066). Hadbi discloses that an inverter can be directly connected to the first positive node of a first plurality of thin-film photovoltaic modules, directly to the first negative node of the plurality of thin film photovoltaic modules, directly to the second positive node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules and directly to the second negative node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules (Fig. 20, #11 is directly connected to the “left” positive nodes of serially connected PV modules and directly connected to the “right” negative nodes of serially connected PV modules). Hadbi discloses that an inverter is used in conventional systems and controlled by a maximum power point tracker algorithm to make it possible to be as close as possible to a maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage (Paragraph 0052). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Jutteau et al. nodes be connected via an inverter as disclosed by Hadbi to ensure the photovoltaic device assembly is as close as possible to its maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage.
In view of Claim 28, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 27. Jutteau et al. does not disclose an inverter is connected to the first positive node, the first negative node, the second positive node, and the second negative node, wherein the inverter has a voltage rating that is greater than a first operating voltage generated by the first circuit and a second operating voltage generated by the second circuit
Hadbi discloses an inverter that is connected to all of the outputs of a tandem photovoltaic system (Fig. 12, #1000 & Paragraph 0066). Hadbi discloses that an inverter can be directly connected to the first positive node of a first plurality of thin-film photovoltaic modules, directly to the first negative node of the plurality of thin film photovoltaic modules, directly to the second positive node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules and directly to the second negative node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules (Fig. 20, #11 is directly connected to the “left” positive nodes of serially connected PV modules and directly connected to the “right” negative nodes of serially connected PV modules). Hadbi discloses that an inverter is used in conventional systems and controlled by a maximum power point tracker algorithm to make it possible to be as close as possible to a maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage (Paragraph 0052). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Jutteau et al. nodes be connected via an inverter as disclosed by Hadbi to ensure the photovoltaic device assembly is as close as possible to its maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage.
In view of Claim 31, Jutteau et al., and Hadbi are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 30. Jutteau et al. discloses the first operating voltage is within 5 percent of the second operating voltage (Abstract & Paragraph 0009 – the first and second electrical circuit are configured to operate within ±10% of each other’s operating voltages).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutteau et al. (US 2023/0421094 A1) in view of Hadbi (US 2023/0074235 A1) in view of Tycorun “Understanding inverter voltage – common voltage parameters of inverters” in view of Tomita (GB 2476736 A).
In view of Claim 16, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jutteau et al. teaches that the first photovoltaic cells of the first photovoltaic modules each have a first operating voltage during operating; the second photovoltaic cells of the second photovoltaic modules each have a second operating voltage during operation (Abstract & Paragraph 0009 – the first and second electrical circuit are configured to operate within ±10% of each other’s operating voltages).
Jutteau et al. discloses first photovoltaic cells of the first plurality of the first photovoltaic modules comprise a first number of first photovoltaic cells (Figs. 5A-D, #101-#106 six rows of cells – Paragraph 0090), second photovoltaic cells of the second plurality of the second photovoltaic modules comprise a second number of second photovoltaic cells (Fig. 1, #101-#106 – Paragraph 0074), but does not disclose an operating voltage of the first electrical circuit and the second electrical circuit is based on a least common multiple (LCM) of the first number of first photovoltaic cells and the second number of photovoltaic cells.
Tomita discloses operating voltages of a first electrical and a second electrical is based on a least common multiple of a first number of first photovoltaic cells and a second number of photovoltaic cells (Page 15, Lines 5-8, Page 23, Lines 12-22). Tomita discloses that output voltage is of modules are controlled appropriately so as to enhance conversion efficiency of a step-up voltage transformer (Page 23, Lines 13-18). Tomita discloses that this step is required for improving efficiency of semiconductors made of different kinds of materials that are stacked so as to utilize the band gaps of the semiconductors, however it is required to design the cells to maintain the current flow constant, otherwise the cells may suffer from a loss of power (Page 12, last paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have ensure that Jutteau et al. photovoltaic device assembly has an operating voltage of the first electrical circuit and the second electrical circuit based on a least common multiple (LCM) of the first number of first photovoltaic cells and the second number of photovoltaic cells for the advantages of improving efficiency by ensuring that the different cells do not suffer any power loss.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutteau et al. (US 2023/0421094 A1) in view of Solarnplus “How Many Solar Cells are in a Typical Panel?”.
In view of Claim 21, Jutteau et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jutteau et al. discloses that the second photovoltaic module of the second plurality of the second photovoltaic modules comprise either one large group of cells (Fig. 1) or two large groups of cells (Fig. 2) but does not specify that the first photovoltaic module of the first plurality of the first photovoltaic modules comprise greater than 5 groups of first photovoltaic cells.
Solarnplus disclose that the number of PV cells in a solar panel is influenced by several factors, including panel efficiency, desired power output, and space constraints. Higher efficiency cells require fewer cells to achieve the same power output, allowing for more compact panel designs. Conversely, lower efficiency cells necessitate more cells to reach the desired power rating, resulting in larger panel sizes and that space constraints can also play a role in the cell count decision. In areas with limited roof or ground space, higher-efficiency panels with fewer cells may be preferred to maximize power generation within the available area. Conversely, larger installations with ample space may opt for lower-efficiency, higher-cell-count panels to optimize cost-effectiveness and additionally, manufacturers may employ different cell arrangements and panel designs to optimize performance, aesthetics, or manufacturing efficiency. For example, some panels incorporate half-cut or shingled cell configurations, which can impact the overall cell count while maintaining or improving electrical characteristics (Page 5 – Factors Affecting Cell Number). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to arrive at five groups or more of the first photovoltaic cells in Jutteau et al. configuration as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the number of cells determined for a specific photovoltaic assembly is a result-effective-variable which achieves the recognized results of 1) a desired panel efficiency, 2) desired power output and/or 3) desired space constraints. See MPEP 2144.05.
In view of Claim 22, Jutteau et al. and Solarnplus are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Jutteau et al. discloses the first material comprises a perovskite and the second material comprises (Paragraph 0068).
In view of Claim 23, Jutteau et al. and Solarnplus are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 21. Jutteau et al. teaches that the second photovoltaic modules can have 2 groups of second photovoltaic cells (Fig. 2).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jutteau et al. (US 2023/0421094 A1).
In view of Claims 24-25, Jutteau et al.is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jutteau et al. teaches that the first operative voltage is equal to a voltage at a maximum power, the second operating voltage is equal to a voltage at maximum power, and that the first operating voltage is within 3 percent of the second operating voltage (Abstract & Paragraph 0009 – voltages are within plus or minus 10%). In regards to the operating voltages being measured at a NOCT condition, its noted that Jutteau et al. is utilizing a tandem silicon/perovskite configuration, which is identical to Applicant’s claimed tandem silicon/perovskite configuration. Thus Jutteau et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for the operating voltages to be within these percentages “when measured at a nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT) condition”. See MPEP 2112.01 I..
In regards to the limitation “that the first operating voltage is within 3 percent of the second operating voltage”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Jutteau et al. because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that there is support in the specification for claim 24 wherein, Applicant recites, “the first operating voltage is within 5 percent of the second operating voltage when measured at a nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT) condition”. Applicant discloses that the specification provides support for this limitation in Paragraph 0112 of the US PGPub of the Instant Application, “in one or more examples, the first voltage and the second voltage differ by more than three percent, more than five percent, more than 10 percent, etc.”. Its respectfully pointed out to Applicant that the limitation recites, “within 5 percent”, thus this passage does not provide written description for this limitation. For example, its not disclosed that the first and second operating voltage are within 0 percent, 1 percent, or 2 percent, 3 percent etc., but that they are have voltages that differ by more than 3 percent or 5 percent. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Jutteau does not disclose “each first photovoltaic module of the first plurality of photovoltaic modules comprises 6, 7, 8 or 9 groups, or greater than 9 groups of series connected first photovoltaic cells, and each second photovoltaic module of the second plurality of second photovoltaic modules comprises 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 groups of series connected second photovoltaic cells”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that in regards to the limitation that, “each first photovoltaic module of the first plurality of photovoltaic modules comprises 6, 7, 8 or 9 groups, or greater than 9 groups of series connected first photovoltaic cells, and each second photovoltaic module of the second plurality of second photovoltaic modules comprises 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 groups of series connected second photovoltaic cells”. Jutteau et al. discloses that while there can be at least 4 groups of series connected second photovoltaic module (Fig. 5B & Paragraph 0091). Jutteau et al. discloses existing panel having a width l and a length L and said plurality Q of photovoltaic cells of the second type being arranged parallel to the width l of the existing panel, said method comprises one or more steps of: determining the maximum power point voltage VMPP of the existing panel or of the group of existing panels when they are combined with the additional module (Paragraph 0022-0023), calculating the number N′1 of photovoltaic cells of the second type to be placed in series to create a sub-module S′1 of the additional module that is suitable for supplying said voltage V1 (Paragraph 0024), and the power of the module and the coverage of the existing panel are thus optimized according to the voltage VMPP of the existing panel, with cells of the module having a width close to the length of the existing panel (Paragraph 0027). Jutteau et al. discloses that this optimization method is for existing panels of silicon (same as Applicant’s) that have additional modules (also same type of materials as Applicant’s perovskite) such that the optimization method which includes determining in step 1 an operating voltage VMPP of an existing panel having P cells of a first type, for example cells based on crystalline silicon, producing in step 2 an additional module 10 comprising a second plurality Q of cells of the second type and having a different band gap width than the cells of the existing panel, configured to supply an operating voltage V1 equal, to within ±10%, to voltage VMPP of said panel or of said group of existing panels, positioning in step 3 the additional module in an overlapping manner on or under the existing panel, the module being connected in parallel to said existing panel or to said group of existing panels. For the production of the structured cells of the module, the starting point is the width l and the length L of the panel and we choose whether the plurality Q of cells is arranged parallel to the length L of the existing panel or to its width (Paragraph 0077), and In step 21, the maximum power point voltage VMPP of the existing panel combined with the additional module is then determined, in step 22, the number N of cells to be connected in series is calculated in order to produce a sub-module S1 of the additional module that is suitable for supplying said voltage V1 (Paragraph 0078-0079) and in step 23 a height Hcell of said cells of the sub-module S1 is calculated, and in step 24 the number M1 of sub-modules S1 that can be fitted in parallel over the width l of the existing panel is calculated, maximizing the power of said module overlapping the existing panel, at voltage V1. It should be noted that steps 23 and 24 are interdependent. Several combinations can exist but the one that allows delivering the maximum amount of power is chosen (Paragraph 0080).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrive at the limitations, ““each first photovoltaic module of the first plurality of photovoltaic modules comprises 6, 7, 8 or 9 groups, or greater than 9 groups of series connected first photovoltaic cells, and each second photovoltaic module of the second plurality of second photovoltaic modules comprises 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 groups of series connected second photovoltaic cells” because the general conditions of the claim are known, that being how to calculate an optimized number of first photovoltaic cells in a first photovoltaic module that are overlying second photovoltaic cells in a second photovoltaic module, and its not considered inventive to discover the optimum number of these cells by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, II, A. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Habdi does not disclose an inverter is connected to the first positive node, the first negative node, the second positive node, and the second negative node, wherein the inverter has a voltage rating that is greater than a first operating voltage generated by the first circuit and a second operating voltage generated by the second circuit.
Hadbi discloses an inverter that is connected to all of the outputs of a tandem photovoltaic system (Fig. 12, #1000 & Paragraph 0066). Hadbi discloses that an inverter can be directly connected to the first positive node of a first plurality of thin-film photovoltaic modules, directly to the first negative node of the plurality of thin film photovoltaic modules, directly to the second positive node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules and directly to the second negative node of the second plurality of photovoltaic modules (Fig. 20, #11 is directly connected to the “left” positive nodes of serially connected PV modules and directly connected to the “right” negative nodes of serially connected PV modules). Hadbi discloses that an inverter is used in conventional systems and controlled by a maximum power point tracker algorithm to make it possible to be as close as possible to a maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage (Paragraph 0052). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have Jutteau et al. nodes be connected via an inverter as disclosed by Hadbi to ensure the photovoltaic device assembly is as close as possible to its maximum power point by imposing the current or voltage. Accordingly, 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