DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of September 16, 2025 is considered herein.
Claims 5-8 have been amended.
Claims 1-4 have been cancelled.
Claims 5-8 are considered on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DANZ (WO2010139290A2, wherein an English machine translation provided by the Applicant is cited herein).
Regarding claim 5, DANZ teaches semi-transparent solar modules for the generation of electrical energy (“solar modules”, abstract, interpreted to be semi-transparent based on the use of non-transparent solids within the module (see metals and known opaque materials for solar cells themselves)), wherein the solar modules comprise solar glass substrates or other optically transparent substrates (“highly transparent solar glass or polymer substrate”, abstract), characterized in that on the back of the solar glass substrates or other optically transparent substrates (see figure 3, where light 7 enters on the front of substrate 3 and solar cells 1 are present on the rear side) opaque and/or spectrally partially transparent solar cells (1, figure 3, “solar cells”, taught to be silicon in 3rd paragraph of “Photovoltaic modules for radiation concentration” section, just as in the acceptable materials listed in the disclosure of pages 11/12 of the Design Example) are arranged alternating with optically functional layers (2, “light transporting layers”, taught in 3rd paragraph of “Photovoltaic modules for radiation concentration” section) (shown in alternating relationship with the cells in figure 1), wherein the optically functional layers are partially transparent (page 12 of the specification indicates partially transparent is achieved via the application of a matt white coating, DANZ teaches a matt white coating example 2 on page 4, obviously rendering partial transparency) and transport the solar radiation through the modules (obvious based on the “light transporting layer” name) and also scatter incident solar radiation (“diffusely reflecting materials” in the “light transporting layer” will render scattering, as listed in the top half of the 1st full paragraph of page 3) and direct a part of the solar radiation to the solar cells (page 4 of the instant application teaches redirection will happen when light scattering particles are used, which is discusses above to be present in DANZ) and which spectrally convert short-wave light of the incident solar radiation into longer-wave light (fluorescence materials, taught to convert the light from short-wave to longer-wave at the bottom of the 1st full paragraph of page 3), wherein the optically functional layers covers between 20% to 50% of the total surface area of the optically transparent substrate, preferably 40% (Figure 1 shows an approximately 50% split between functional layers and non-functional layer area. To be clear, preferably is interpreted as an optional limitation.), and the optically functional layers exhibit a spectral transmission in the range from 400 nm to 700 nm of greater than 60% and between 700 nm and 2 micron, a transmission of 10% to 30% and a diffuse reflection of 70% to 90%, wherein partial absorption of the incident radiation within the functional layers is permitted for spectral conversion of short-wave to longer-wave light (While DANZ is silent to the values of transmission and diffuse reflection, the instant specification discloses the application of white matt reflective paint made of light-scattering particles (Design example, pages 11/12) including titanium dioxide, barium sulfate, talc as the light-scattering particles, at the proportion of 10-30% (page 4) to correlate to the claimed transmission/reflectance (page 5), while DANZ teaches the same particles in the same weight percentage in at the beginning of the 1st full paragraph of page 3, applied in the same way in the full paragraph of page 4. Moreover, the instant application teaches the use of fluorescent materials (including perylenes) at a weight percentage of 0.5-3 wt% to increase transparency (related to transmission) on pages 5/6, while DANZ teaches the use of the same material (paragraph spanning pages 2 and 3, including red perylene in example 1) with the same weight percent (1 or 2% in example 1, in the final paragraph of page 4). The use of the same materials in the same amounts are interpreted to render obvious the same transmission, absorption and reflection values as the specification does not put forth any other processes or components needed to reach the claimed values, simplifying indicating it is the materials which can achieve the claimed values. While DANZ does not specifically address the claim limitation “the functional layers having a spectral transmission in the range from 400 nm to 700 nm of greater than 60% and between 700 nm and 2 micron a transmission of 10% to 30% and a diffuse reflection of 70% to 90%, wherein partial absorption of incident radiation within the functional layers is permitted for spectral conversion of short-wave to longer-wave light”, this is considered to be an intrinsic property resulting from following the materials and application taught by the reference(s), which are the same as those instantly claimed, absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. As a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.)
Regarding claim 6, DANZ teaches the optically functional layers consist of reflector coatings containing light-scattering particles based on titanium dioxide, barium sulphate and talc in suitable binder materials (1st full paragraph of page 3) and/or are composed of fluorescent layers with fluorescent materials selected from the group of organic fluorescent dyes including xanthenes, rhodamines, oxazines, perylenes, pyrromethenes and naphthalimides and selected from the group of inorganic fluorescent pigments, including Rare earth metal phosphors, doped phosphates or silicates or also LED phosphors (paragraph spanning pages 2/3).
Regarding claim 7, DANZ teaches the modules are used as power-supplying and light-guiding semi-transparent canopies for solar terraces, conservatories, canopies, skylights, carports, greenhouses, shopping arcades, stadiums and agricultural areas, motorways and other traffic routes, car parks and as coloured facades on buildings and boundaries (This claim is directed to the intended use of the module, not the structure of the module and the use is therefore not given patentable weight since the claim is directed to an apparatus. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The module of DANZ is capable of functioning in the uses as claimed, fulfilling the claim. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, DANZ also teaches the modules to function as roofs and facades in the 1st full paragraph of page 3, also fulfilling the claim as written.)
Regarding claim 8, DANZ teaches the use of the module for thermal protection and for the illumination of indoor spaces, for the protection of agricultural crops and soils against frost, dehydration, damaging solar radiation and heat, and for promoting plant growth (This claim is directed to the intended use of or manner of operating the module, not the structure of the module and the uses are therefore not given patentable weight since the claim is directed to an apparatus. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. The module of DANZ is capable of functioning in the uses as claimed, fulfilling the claim.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Starting in the 4th paragraph of page 6 to the end of the page of the remarks, the Applicant argues DANZ teaches the layers to render a 0.1% transmission rate, comparing the claimed transmission rate. Moreover, the Applicant states DANZ is silent to the claimed values and has no intention to create layer “that allow measured amount of radiation to pass through”.
Firstly, the disclosure of DANZ regarding the transmission percentage is based on 0.1% of all light, not light in the infrared range (700 nm to 2 micron as claimed) or just visible range (400-700 nm), so concluding that the claimed percentage in the claimed range isn’t present in DANZ is not definitive or persuasive.
Moreover, the rejection is not based on an allegation that DANZ discloses the claimed ranges explicitly, but rather that the same materials are used in the same way to make the same layers. To this point, the Applicant has provided no rebuttal to dispute the use of the same materials used in the same way will render the same claimed characteristics. The Applicant is encouraged to rebut the rejection based on the structural or material differences of the layers of DANZ compared to the instant application, a method directly requested within the rejection above as well. It is difficult to understand how the same layers used the same way will render different transmission, reflection and absorption data.
Starting in the first and second full paragraphs of page 7, the Applicant argues the claim requires 20-50% of the substrate is covered with functional layers and that while DANZ teaches a checkerboard or alternating fields, it does not “provide any teachings about adjusting area ratios to affect radiation transmission or transparency” so “the coverage ratio is not a disclosed or implied design variable in DANZ”.
This argument is not persuasive. The Applicant has chosen an apparatus claim. DANZ teaches a percentage of coverage of the substrate with optical layers within the claimed range. For this reason, this limitation is clearly fulfilled by DANZ.
The premise that DANZ need to teach the coverage ratio to be variable or adjustable is not claimed and not discussed in this regard in the specification either.
In the last 3rd and 4th paragraphs of page 7, the Applicant argues DANZ describes functional layers on the front-side for “immediate redistribution of radiation to adjacent cells”.
It is unclear where the argument comes from. Figure 3 very clearly shows the glass substrate 3 with the optical layer 2 on the rear side. It is unclear how DANZ doesn’t show the claimed relationship between the cells and substrate.
In the final paragraph of page 7 and the first paragraph of page 8, the Applicant argues the claimed invention also defines “material configuration layer thicknesses, Particle compositions, and area ratios to achieve specific behavior” and deliberate formulations such as “use of titanium dioxide, barium sulfate, and perylenes at defined concentrations”, where DANZ doesn’t “describe achieving or targeting such spectral effects”.
The Examiner is not persuaded as this is the exact argument which is put forth in the rejection with no differences between the thickness, particle compositions or area ratios between DANZ and the instant application being pointed out herein. The Applicant is invited to make clear what exactly is used to achieve the claimed ratios if this is not addressed above so one of ordinary skill can be enabled to use the claimed invention, not guess as to how it is achieved.
To be clear, DANZ teaches layers of the same thickness (0.5mm, middle 1st full paragraph page 3) as that of the instant disclosure’s range (20-100 micron) using the same materials as listed in the remarks above in the same weight percentage (as described in the rejection above (barium sulfate, perylene and titanium dioxide) and in DANZ beginning of the 1st full paragraph of page 3, applied in the same way in the full paragraph of page 4), in the same area ratio (50%, re: checkerboard). It is unclear how the same “spectral effects” are not achieved when the same materials are used.
The Applicant is again encouraged to show clearly how the instant layers are materially and/or structurally different and how the instant application uses these layers to reach levels which they say are not achieved or achievable in DANZ, as structurally it is unclear how the instant application and DANZ differ.
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 KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 12/15/2025