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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A-1 and Species B-1 in the reply filed on 3/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10, 13, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B-2 (claims 10 and 13) and Species B-4 (claim 18), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/18/2026.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 7 recites “the sealing member is formed to be concave and fixed to the first groove”. However, nowhere does the instant specification state this feature or show it in the figures.
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 1-9 and 12 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 1 recites the limitation "the solar module.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no solar module was recited. It is noted “a solar color module” is recited in the preamble, such that it is unclear if the limitation is referencing the solar color module. Clarification is requested. Similar deficiency is also found in claim 3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the color layer is installed on and removed from the solar module”. It is unclear how the color layer can be installed on and at the same time removed from the solar module. It appears Applicant intends to state the color layer is “spaced apart” from the solar module based on Figure 3. Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a cover window provided in a layered structure with the color layer”. It is unclear if “a layered structure” encompasses the color layer or the cover window comprises a layered structure and is provided on the color layer. Clarification is requested. Similar deficiency is found in claim 12.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a solar module” in line 2. However, claim 1 from which claim 3 depends upon already recites “a solar color module” and “the solar module”, such that it is unclear if the same or different “solar module” is being referenced in claim 3. Additionally, claim 1 from which claim 3 depends upon already recites coupling the color layer to the solar module, such that the recitation of “when the color layer is coupled to a solar module” in claim 3 appears to be redundant. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a first groove formed to be concave on a surface of the color layer is further provided” but does not explicitly state where this first groove is to be formed. Looking at Figure 3, it appears the first groove is part of the fixing portion, which is not specified in the claim. Clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the laminated color layers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no laminated color layers have been previously recited. Clarification is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 15 -17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior arts are Kim et al. (KR 10 1874827; see English machine translation) and Umemoto et al. (US 2002/0153038).
While Kim discloses a color variable solar module (see Figure 1) comprising a first module including an encapsulated (3) solar cell (1) and a second module comprising a color layer (13), the reference does not teach nor render obvious a fixing portion in which a coupling structure allows the first module and the second module to be coupled and separated, the fixing portion comprising a hinge portion formed to be rotatable because Kim discloses coupling the two modules together using a spacer (9) and does not suggest needing to separate the solar cell from the color layer.
While Umemoto discloses a color variable solar module (see Figure 11) comprising a first module including an encapsulated (2 and 6) solar cell (8) and a second module comprising a color layer (37), the reference does not teach nor render obvious a fixing portion in which a coupling structure allows the first module and the second module to be coupled and separated, the fixing portion comprising a hinge portion formed to be rotatable because Umemoto discloses coupling the two modules together using primary seal 24 and secondary seal 25 ([0095]) and does not suggest needing to separate the solar cell from the color layer.
Additionally, Yoon et al. (KR 10 1370676; see English machine translation) discloses a frame or fixing portion (50) securing another item such as a reinforcing bar (60) to a solar module (1) (see Figure 3), but the reference does not teach nor render obvious a fixing portion comprising a hinge portion formed to be rotatable.
Therefore, the unique combination of claims 11 and 15 -17 is allowable over the prior arts.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights