DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/849,177, filed on 09/20/2024, which is a 371 of PCT/JP2023/011513, filed on 03/23/2023, and which claims foreign priority to JP 2022-193167, filed on 12/01/2022, and which claims foreign priority to JP 2022-048274, filed on 03/24/2022.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 12/17/2025.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election with traverse of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 in the reply received on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground the species do not lack a special technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature, represented by claim 1, is fully disclosed by the prior art, i.e., YAMADA (see rejections below), and therefore cannot define a contribution over the prior art. The applicant also does not explain at this time that the species are not obvious variants. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claims 2 and 4 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a critical surface tension yc of a surface of the photovoltaic power generation sheet being 20 or more and 45 or less inclusive”, but does not recite any units of this property. The instant specification also provides no useful context or information that clarifies what this value is, how it is calculated or tested, or what materials possess the property claimed. The examiner also believes that the recited property may depend on both the surface material and the specific liquid, and no example of either the material or the liquid is given. Thus, the examiner cannot determine with certainty how to judge whether a prior art surface truly has the recited critical surface tension values, and the claim does not properly and fully define the metes and bounds of the asserted invention. All other claims depend on claim 1 and similarly fail to particularly point out and distinctly recite the claimed invention. In order to accomplish compact prosecution, the examiner assumes that units of “mN/m” are appropriate for the critical surface tension property.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA (JP 2002203980 A; English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, YAMADA teaches an installation structure for a photovoltaic power generation sheet comprising:
an installation surface (roof or wall surface); and
a photovoltaic power generation sheet (Fig. 1) provided on an upper side of the installation surface,
a surface of the photovoltaic power generation sheet including a surface inclined at an angle of 1.50 or more with respect to a horizontal plane ((“preferable to set the installation angle to 20-70 degrees in order to reduce snow adhesion” and “the installation angle refers to the angle of rise from the horizontal plane”, para. 66), and a critical surface tension yc of a surface of the photovoltaic power generation sheet being 20 or more and 45 or less inclusive (“outermost layer 201 on the light receiving surface in the present invention comprises a material with a critical surface tension of at least 15 to 35 mN/m,” para. 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
159
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, YAMADA teaches the installation structure according to claim 1, further comprising a support member (“a mounting frame” and “rigid members support the solar cell modules” and “Examples of support substrates used in the present invention include painted steel plates, glass fiber reinforced plastics, hard plastics, and timber”, para. 58) installed on the installation surface (the roof is the installation surface in this embodiment scenario), wherein the support member has a surface inclined at an angle of 1.50 or more with respect to a horizontal plane (“horizontal plane” is understood here by the examiner to mean perfectly level, i.e. 0 degree angle; the claim does not require that the horizontal plane is associated with any other recited component), and the photovoltaic power generation sheet is installed on a surface of the support member (support substrate member can include a sheet that has a surface, and the solar cell modules are then mounted to connect to these support members, per description in para. 58; and as prima facie obvious modification, MPEP 2143 and also obvious rearrangement of parts only related to relative position of components, obvious matter of design choice, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding claim 6, YAMADA teaches the installation structure according to claim 1, wherein the installation surface is inclined at an angle of 1.50 or more with respect to a horizontal plane (“preferable to set the installation angle to 20-70 degrees in order to reduce snow adhesion” and “the installation angle refers to the angle of rise from the horizontal plane”, para. 66), and the photovoltaic power generation sheet is installed on the installation surface (PV install on roof or wall surface). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA (JP 2002203980 A; English machine translation provided) in view of FRIEDLANDER (“Perovskite mineral supports solar-energy sustainability”, 2020).
Regarding claim 3, YAMADA teaches the installation structure according to claim 1, wherein the photovoltaic power generation sheet includes a plurality of power generation cells (“one or more photovoltaic elements are connected”).
YAMADA does not disclose expressly that the power generation cells contain a perovskite compound. YAMADA teaches, however, that “All types of photovoltaic elements can be used” (para. 46).
FRIEDLANDER teaches that in addition to offering a faster return on the initial energy investment than silicon-based solar panels, all-perovskite solar cells mitigate climate change because they consume less energy in the manufacturing process (para. 3).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify YAMADA and use a perovskite compound for the solar cells because they offer a faster return on the initial energy investment than silicon-based solar panels and because all-perovskite solar cells require less energy in the manufacturing process as taught by FRIEDLANDER.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights