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 03/09/2026.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 13 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki et al. (JPH1146007 with provided machine English translation). Further evidence is provided by Yamashita et al. (JP2011049485 with provided machine English translation), Bullo et al. (ITVR20120103 with provided machine English translation), Demko (US 2019/0359783) and D’arco (IT VI20090192 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 1 and 7-8, Mochizuki discloses an installation structure for a photovoltaic power generation sheet 20, comprising:
an installation surface 1;
a photovoltaic power generation sheet 20 installed above the installation surface (figs. 1 and 3);
a sealing member 2 (made of EVA, [0014]) that closes a gap between an outer peripheral edge of the photovoltaic power generation sheet 20 and the installation surface 1; and
a cover member 10 that covers the sealing member between the outer peripheral edge of the photovoltaic power generation sheet and the installation surface (fig. 3),
wherein
the sealing member 2 is formed of a bonder (EVA is a known adhesive in photovoltaic module; therefore, it is the claimed bonder) provided between at least an outer peripheral portion of the photovoltaic power generation sheet 20 and the installation surface to bond the outer peripheral portion to the installation surface (figs. 1 and 3),
the cover member 10 includes a base portion installed on the installation surface and a cover portion that rises from the base portion and that is disposed along the outer peripheral edge of the photovoltaic power generation sheet 20 (annotated fig. 3 below), and
the cover portion has a shape bent with respect to the base portion (annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
288
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 3, Mochizuki discloses in page 3 that the layer 9 is made of EVA, which has the loss factor that falls within the claimed range based on the evidence provided by Yamashita (paragraph [0018] discloses EVA has the loss factor of 0.05) and Bullo (paragraph [0037] discloses loss factor of 0.05 or 0.06).
Addressing claim 9, Mochizuki discloses the cover member 10 is made of PVF [0011], which has uv blocking property as evidenced by Demko in paragraph [0068] and D’Arco in paragraph [0011].
Addressing claim 10, see fig. 3.
Addressing claim 13, paragraph [0013] discloses the photovoltaic power generation sheet is flexible.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita et al. (JP2011049485 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 1 and 7, Yamashita discloses an installation structure (fig. 4b) for a photovoltaic power generation sheet (3’+2), comprising:
an installation surface 5;
a photovoltaic power generation sheet 3’ installed above the installation surface 5;
a sealing member 4 that closes a gap between an outer peripheral edge of the photovoltaic generation sheet 3’ and the installation surface 5,
a cover member (tape 25) that covers the sealing member 4 between the outer peripheral edge of the photovoltaic power generation sheet and the installation surface (fig. 4b),
wherein
the sealing member 4 is formed of a bonder (EVA, [0018]) provided between at least an outer peripheral portion of the photovoltaic power generation sheet 3’ and the installation surface 5 to bond the outer peripheral portion to the installation surface,
the cover member 25 (annotated fig. 4b below) includes a base portion installed on the installation surface and a cover portion that rises from the base portion and that is disposed along the outer peripheral edge of the photovoltaic power generation sheet 3’, and
the cover portion has a shape bent with respect to the base portion (fig. 4b).
PNG
media_image2.png
328
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 3, paragraph [0018] discloses the bonder 4 has a loss factor δ of 0.05 that falls within the claimed range.
Addressing claim 8, fig. 1b shows the claimed configuration.
Addressing claim 13, fig. 2 shows the photovoltaic power generation sheet has flexibility.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itoyama et al. (JPH11312819 with provided machine English translation). Further evidence is provided by Wehnert (DE102012011684 with provided machine English translation), Lim (KR102477869 with provided machine English translation) and Schwarze (US 2008/0066801).
Addressing claims 1 and 8, Itoyama discloses an installation structure (figs. 1a-1c) for a photovoltaic power generation sheet (101+102+103), comprising:
an installation surface 106 [0040];
a photovoltaic power generation sheet (101+102+103) installed above the installation surface;
a sealing member 104 that closes a gap between an outer peripheral edge of the photovoltaic power generation sheet and the installation surface (figs. 1a-1c); and
a cover member 105 that covers the sealing member between the outer peripheral edge of the photovoltaic power generation sheet and the installation surface (figs. 1c),
wherein
the sealing member 104 is formed of a bonder (paragraph [0074] discloses the materials for the sealing member 104 that qualify the sealing member as the claimed bonder) provided between at least an outer peripheral portion of the photovoltaic power generation sheet and the installation surface to bond the outer peripheral portion to the installation surface (fig. 1c),
the cover member 105 (annotated fig. 1b) includes a base portion installed on the installation surface 106 (fig. 1c) and a cover portion that rises from the base portion and that is disposed along the outer peripheral edge of the photovoltaic power generation sheet (fig. 1c),
the cover portion has a shape bent with respect to the base portion (annotated fig. 1b).
PNG
media_image3.png
202
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 9, Itoyama discloses in paragraph [0086] the cover member 105 is made of PVC (which has UV blocking property according to the evidence disclosed by Wehnert in paragraph [0023]), aluminum (which has UV blocking property according to the evidence disclosed by Lim in paragraph [0023]) or EPDM rubber (which has UV blocking property according to Schwarze in paragraph [0045]).
Addressing claim 10, figs. 1b-1c show the cover member includes a covered portion that covers a portion having a predetermined width from an outer peripheral edge on a front surface of the photovoltaic power generation sheet.
Addressing claim 13, Itoyama discloses in paragraph [0097] that the photovoltaic power generation sheet has flexibility.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (JPH1146007 with provided machine English translation) in view of Zhong et al. (CN205564773 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 4, Mochizuki is silent regarding the thickness of the EVA bonder 2.
Zhong discloses a photovoltaic module having the encapsulation layers 4 and 2 covering the front and back surfaces, respectively of the photovoltaic power generation sheet 3; wherein, the thickness of the layers 2 and 4 is between 0.2 mm to 1 cm [0036], which overlaps with the claimed range. The thickness of the encapsulation layers 2 and 4 affect the uniformity and visibility of the area [0036].
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 installation structure of Mochizuki by perform routine experimentation with the thickness of the EVA encapsulation layer in the range disclosed by Zhong in order to optimize the uniformity of the photovoltaic area [0036].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (JPH1146007 with provided machine English translation) in view of Ueda et al. (US 2018/0358492). Further evidence is provided by Katayama (JP2018026530 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 5, Mochizuki is silent regarding the bonder has a modulus of transverse elasticity in the claimed range.
It is noted that the claimed modulus of transverse elasticity corresponds to Young’s modulus as evidenced by Katayama’s disclosure in paragraph [0106] of the translation document.
Ueda discloses an installation structure for a photovoltaic power generation sheet 10 (figs. 1-2); wherein, the installation structure comprises an EVA bonder 24 having loss tangent of 0.05 similarly to that and tensile modulus of elasticity, which is the equivalence of the claimed modulus of transverse elasticity, of 0.01 to 0.25 GPa, which overlaps the claimed range.
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 EVA bonder of Mochizuki with the known EVA bonder of Ueda having the tensile modulus of elasticity and loss tangent or loss factor that fall within the claimed ranges in order to obtain the predictable result of encapsulating the rear side of the photovoltaic power generation sheet (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143). Additionally, one would have arrived at the claimed modulus of transverse elasticity by perform routine experimentation with the tensile modulus of elasticity in the range disclosed by Ueda in order to optimize the encapsulation property of the EVA resin layer.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Mochizuki et al. (JPH1146007 with provided machine English translation) in view of Mori et al. (JP2000036611 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 6, Mochizuki is silent regarding the bonder has a viscosity of 800 cP or more.
Mori discloses EVA as an adhesive for attaching a photovoltaic power generation sheet 1 to an installation surface 3 (fig. 1); wherein, the adhesive that is greater than 800 cP (paragraph [0046] of the translation document.
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 EVA bonder of Mochizuki by performing routine experimentation with the viscosity in the range disclosed by Mori [0030] in order to optimize the flow out prevention and the ease of formation of the adhesive layer in the desired shape [0030]. Therefore, one would have arrived at the claimed viscosity of the bonder when performing routine experimentation with the viscosity in the range disclosed by Mori [0030] in order to optimize the flow out prevention and the ease of formation of the adhesive layer in the desired shape [0030].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP2011049485 with provided machine English translation) in view of Jiang (CN104659142 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 4, Yamashita is silent regarding the bonder 4 has a thickness in the claimed range.
Jiang discloses an installation structure for photovoltaic power generation sheet comprising a backsheet structure having EVA layer 6 with a thickness of 3 mm [0018].
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 bonder of Yamashita with the backsheet structure disclosed by Jiang having the EVA layer, as the structural equivalence to the claimed bonder, with a thickness of 3 pm as disclosed by Jiang in order to improve power generation efficiency with the reflective layer of the backsheet structure (Jiang, [0014]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP2011049485 with provided machine English translation) in view of Ueda et al. (US 2018/0358492). Further evidence is provided by Katayama (JP2018026530 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 5, Yamashita is silent regarding the bonder has a modulus of transverse elasticity in the claimed range.
It is noted that the claimed modulus of transverse elasticity corresponds to Young’s modulus as evidenced by Katayama’s disclosure in paragraph [0106] of the translation document.
Ueda discloses an installation structure for a photovoltaic power generation sheet 10 (figs. 1-2); wherein, the installation structure comprises an EVA bonder 24 having loss tangent of 0.05 similarly to that and tensile modulus of elasticity, which is the equivalence of the claimed modulus of transverse elasticity, of 0.01 to 0.25 GPa, which overlaps the claimed range.
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 EVA bonder of Yamashita with the known EVA bonder of Ueda having the tensile modulus of elasticity and loss tangent or loss factor that fall within the claimed ranges in order to obtain the predictable result of encapsulating the rear side of the photovoltaic power generation sheet (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143). Additionally, one would have arrived at the claimed modulus of transverse elasticity by perform routine experimentation with the tensile modulus of elasticity in the range disclosed by Ueda in order to optimize the encapsulation property of the EVA resin layer.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP2011049485 with provided machine English translation) in view of Mori et al. (JP2000036611 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 6, Yamashita is silent regarding the bonder has a viscosity of 800 cP or more.
Mori discloses EVA as an adhesive for attaching a photovoltaic power generation sheet 1 to an installation surface 3 (fig. 1); wherein, the adhesive that is greater than 800 cP (paragraph [0046] of the translation document.
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 EVA bonder of Yamashita by performing routine experimentation with the viscosity in the range disclosed by Mori [0030] in order to optimize the flow out prevention and the ease of formation of the adhesive layer in the desired shape [0030]. Therefore, one would have arrived at the claimed viscosity of the bonder when performing routine experimentation with the viscosity in the range disclosed by Mori [0030] in order to optimize the flow out prevention and the ease of formation of the adhesive layer in the desired shape [0030].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-10 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 13 as being anticipated by Yamashita, the Applicant argued that Yamashita does not disclose the limitation of claim 1 as currently written. The argument is not persuasive for the reasons stated above in the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 13 based on the teaching of Yamashita.
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 04/16/2026
Prosecution Insights