DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
This is the response to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 04/27/2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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 1-20 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. Claims 1, 12 and 20 recite the limitation “wherein a top module output voltage of the top photovoltaic module and a bottom module output voltage of the bottom photovoltaic module are similar” that renders the claims indefinite when the limitation is read in light of the specification because it is unclear as to how close the output voltage of the top photovoltaic module relative to the output voltage of the bottom photovoltaic module have to be in order for the output voltage of the top PV module to be considered as being similar to the output voltage of the bottom PV module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, 4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascarenhas et al. (US 2014/0209149) in view of Multone et al. (WO2015/148637).
Addressing claim 1, Mascarenhas discloses a tandem photovoltaic module (figs. 3-9) comprising:
a top photovoltaic module 302 including:
a substrate 318;
a first metal grid line used in combination with the back contact layer (paragraph [0049] discloses metal grids are used in addition to the back contact layer and paragraph [0053] discloses metal grids are used to minimize optical shading);
a first transparent electrode material (back contact layer 320 that is made of transparent conducting oxide material or metal grid layer [0015]) formed over the substrate;
a thin-film layer 322 residing over the first transparent electrode material;
a second transparent electrode material (front contact layer 324 made of transparent conducting oxide material or metal grid layer [0015]) residing over the thin-film layer;
a second metal grid line used in combination with the second transparent electrode material (paragraph [0040] disclose metal grids are used in conjunction with the top contact layer 324 to facilitate current collection; paragraph [0049] discloses metal grids are used in addition to the front contact layer and paragraph [0053] discloses metal grids are used to minimize optical shading);
a monolithically serially connected thin-film photovoltaic sub-cell residing within the thin-film layer [0040],
the sub-cell including:
a solar absorbing material including perovskite, CIGS or a combination thereof [0014-0015, 0037];
a PV bottom module (306 in fig.3 or 510 in fig. 5) having a plurality of series connected Si-based PV sub-cells (sub-cell string 510 is comprised of Si-sub-cells [0057]); and
an electrical parallel connection between the top and bottom photovoltaic modules (fig. 2), wherein a top module output voltage of the top photovoltaic module and a bottom module output voltage of the bottom photovoltaic module are similar (paragraph [0034] states that the output voltage of the top PV module and bottom PV module are approximately equal, which qualifies as being similar), and wherein a top module width of the top photovoltaic module and a bottom module width of the bottom photovoltaic module are the same (figs. 3-9).
Mascarenhas is silent regarding a first metal grid line residing over the substrate, the first transparent electrode material residing over the first metal grid line and a second metal grid line residing over the second transparent electrode material.
Multone discloses in fig. 1 a thin film photovoltaic module comprising a first metal grid line residing over the substrate 110, a first transparent electrode material 130 residing over the first metal grid line 110, a second transparent electrode material residing over the thin film layer 155 and a second metal grid line residing over the second transparent electrode material.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the thin film PV module of Mascarenhas by providing the metal grid lines on the top and bottom contact layers in the arrangement disclosed by Multone in order to maintain high optical transmission while reducing resistance of the contact layers (Multone, [0026-0027]).
Addressing claim 2, fig. 2 of Mascarenhas shows two output terminals.
Addressing claim 4, the claimed photolithography method for forming the first and second metal grid lines does not structurally differentiate the claimed first and second metal grid lines from those of the prior art (MPEP 2113). Moreover, paragraph [0031] of Multone discloses the grid lines are formed via photolithography method.
Addressing claims 6-8, fig. 1 of Multone discloses the spatial relationship between the first and second metal grid lines that satisfy the claimed limitations.
Addressing claim 9, Mascarenhas implicitly discloses that the thin-film layer is semi-transparent material because the electromagnetic radiation that is not absorbed by the thin-film layer is transmitted to the bottom photovoltaic module.
Addressing claims 10-11, Mascarenhas discloses in paragraph [0040] a passive layer is used on the back side to passivate the bottom sub-cells that corresponds to the claimed protective cover for the bottom photovoltaic module. Alternatively, fig. 3 shows the substrate 318 includes the layer 316 that corresponds to the claimed protective cover for the bottom photovoltaic module that is coated on the inside.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascarenhas et al. (US 2014/0209149) in view of Multone et al. (WO2015/148637) as applied to claims 1-2, 4 and 6-11 above, and further in view of Meuris (EP3648173).
Addressing claim 3, Mascarenhas is silent regarding the sub-cell width and the module width in the claimed ranges.
Meuris discloses a thin-film photovoltaic module with CIGS active layer [0050] similarly to that of Mascarenhas; wherein, the sub-cell has a width in a range of 10 – 40 mm ([0061], cell length, which corresponds to the claimed width as shown in fig. 2, between 3 and 50 mm) in order to minimizes losses in active area due to the series interconnection of the cells and to increase energy generation per unit area [0024]. Meuris further discloses the thin-film photovoltaic module has a width in a range of 80 – 120 cm ([0023 and 0061], 60 cm to 160 cm).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the top thin-film photovoltaic module of Mascarenhas by performing routine experimentations with the sub-cell width and photovoltaic module width in the ranges disclosed by Meuris in order to optimize reduction of losses in active area due to the series interconnection of the cells and increase energy generation per unit area ([0023-0024 and 0061]). Therefore, one would have arrived at the claimed sub-cell width range and photovoltaic module width range when performing routine experimentations with the sub-cell width and photovoltaic module width of Mascarenhas’ top photovoltaic module in the ranges disclosed by Meuris in order to optimize reduction of losses in active area due to the series interconnection of the cells and increase energy generation per unit area.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascarenhas et al. (US 2014/0209149) in view of Multone et al. (WO2015/148637) as applied to claims 1-2, 4 and 6-11 above, and further in view of Armstrong et al. (US 2008/0099063).
Addressing claim 5, Mascarenhas discloses in paragraph [0034] that the number of the sub-cells for the top PV module and the number of sub-cells for bottom PV module are chosen so that the output voltage of the top PV module is approximately equal to that of the output voltage of the bottom PV module, which is similar to the inventive concept of current application. Mascarenhas is silent regarding the output voltages of the top photovoltaic module and the bottom photovoltaic module is in a range of 30-50 V.
Armstrong discloses thin film solar cell sub-module 620 comprises series connected solar cells 628 that are monolithically integrated on a common substrate [0047]; wherein, the output voltage of each sub module 620 is 30 V [0047].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention and lacking any criticality associated with the claimed output voltage range, one with ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed output voltage range of the top PV module and the bottom PV module when perform routine experimentation with the number of solar cells in each submodule of Mascarenhas to achieve the output voltage disclosed by Armstrong in order to optimize the output voltage of the submodule.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascarenhas et al. (US 2014/0209149) in view of Multone et al. (WO2015/148637) and Meuris (EP3648173).
Addressing claim 12, please see the rejection of claims 1 and 3 above because claim 12 includes the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Addressing claims 13 and 15-19, see the rejection of claims 2, 6-8 and 10-11 above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascarenhas et al. (US 2014/0209149) in view of Multone et al. (WO2015/148637) and Meuris (EP3648173) as applied to claims 12-13 and 15-19 above, and further in view of Armstrong et al. (US 2008/0099063).
Addressing claim 14, Mascarenhas discloses in paragraph [0034] that the number of the sub-cells for the top PV module and the number of sub-cells for bottom PV module are chosen so that the output voltage of the top PV module is approximately equal to that of the output voltage of the bottom PV module, which is similar to the inventive concept of current application. Mascarenhas is silent regarding the output voltages of the top photovoltaic module and the bottom photovoltaic module is in a range of 30-50 V.
Armstrong discloses thin film solar cell sub-module 620 comprises series connected solar cells 628 that are monolithically integrated on a common substrate [0047]; wherein, the output voltage of each sub module 620 is 30 V [0047].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention and lacking any criticality associated with the claimed output voltage range, one with ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed output voltage range of the top PV module and the bottom PV module when perform routine experimentation with the number of solar cells in each submodule of Mascarenhas to achieve the output voltage disclosed by Armstrong in order to optimize the output voltage of the submodule.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mascarenhas et al. (US 2014/0209149) in view of Multone et al. (WO2015/148637), Meuris (EP3648173) and Armstrong et al. (US 2008/0099063).
Addressing claim 20, please see the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5 above because current claim consists of the limitations of claims 1, 3 and 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The Applicants argued that the recited references do not teach the limitation “wherein a top module output voltage … a bottom module width of the bottom photovoltaic module are the same”, the argument is not persuasive because Mascarenhas discloses a top module output voltage of the top photovoltaic module and a bottom module output voltage of the bottom photovoltaic module are similar (paragraph [0034] states that the output voltage of the top PV module and bottom PV module are approximately equal, which qualifies as being similar), and wherein a top module width of the top photovoltaic module and a bottom module width of the bottom photovoltaic module are the same (figs. 3-9).
The Applicants further argued that “The combination of the cited art does not disclose overcoming the parasitic resistive power loss by using the metal grid lines to improve the conductivity of the electrode material arranged on the thin film layer of the thin film based PV sub-cells, and thereby allowing the use of wider thin film based PV sub-cells. The argument is not persuasive because it does not address the content of the claims and the content of the rejection. The rejection clearly stated that the usage of the metal grid line in the manner disclosed by Multone result in maintaining high optical transmission while reducing resistance of the contact layers (Multone, [0026-0027]). The Applicants did not articulate as to how it would not have been obvious to modify the teaching of Mascarenhas with the metal grid lines of Multone, instead the argument is drawn to features that are not recited in the claims.
The Applicants further argued that “it is unclear whether routine experimentation would result in the claimed invention because of the parasitic resistive power losses from wider cells or increasing the number of PV sub-cells, which results in an unbalanced voltage matching”, the argument is not persuasive because it is unclear as to which claim the above argument is directed to because the rejection of claim 1 does not require any routine experimentation. With regard to claims 12 and 20, which involve routine experimentations when it comes to the width of the PV modules and the output voltages, the argument is not persuasive because the Applicants have not provided actual evidence, other than stating that “it is unclear”, indicating that the combined references would not result in the claimed range. Just because the prior art does not discuss the reduction in resistive power losses does not mean the claimed limitations would not have been obvious especially when each modification is supported by clear motivation from the cited references. Furthermore, the Applicants have not provided any evidence of unexpected results relating to the claimed ranges to dispute the routine experimentations based on the teaching of the prior art where the PV module widths and output voltages are taught as result effective variables.
For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 1-20 are unpatentable over the combination of references as discussed above.
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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 05/08/2026
Prosecution Insights