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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 03/05/2026.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 11-17 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 have been canceled.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/126918 to Carter et al. (hereinafter, " Carter") in view of KR 10-1782441 to Lee et al. (hereinafter, "Lee").
Regarding Claims 1 and 3
Carter discloses a thin film photovoltaic module (Fig. 8, encapsulated module stack 400) comprising:
a submodule comprising a first glass layer (Fig. 8, Flexible glass), a transparent conducting oxide layer (Fig. 8, TCO), a thin film semiconductor layer (Fig. 8, CdTe), and a conductive back contact layer (Fig. 8, Back contact);
a lamination layer (Fig. 8, encapsulant 430; Para 0087, laminating a suitable encapsulating material); and
an electrically insulative backing layer (Fig. 8, Rigid backing 440; Para 0087, may include a flexible glass, or polymer; Para 0070, discloses rigid or flexible glass is electrically insulating).
Carter discloses the electrically insulative backing layer comprising a rigid glass, polymer or metal foils (Para 0087).
Carter does not disclose the electrically insulative backing layer comprising enameled steel (instant claim 1), wherein the electrically insulative backing layer comprises a steel core having a first side and a second side, wherein the first and second sides are coated with a glass powder enamel material (instant claim 3).
Lee teaches a module (Para 0028, solar cell module) wherein the electrically insulative backing layer (Fig. 1, 10/20/30/40/50 - back sheet for solar cell module) comprises a steel core (Fig. 1, substrate layer 30; Para 0050, substrate layer 30 can be stainless steel) having a first side and a second side, wherein the first and second sides are coated with a glass powder enamel material (Fig. 1, heat- dissipation encapsulation 20 and insulating layer 40; Para 0040-0041, heat dissipation encapsulation layer 20 may be polyolefin-based resin with ceramic powder, such as silica; Para 0065, insulating layer 40 may be a polyolefin-based resin with ceramic powder, such as silica; Para 0066, layer 40 may have the same configuration as layer 20; Para 0013, ceramic powder is selected from silica).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrically insulative backing layer of Carter to comprise a steel core having a first side and a second side, wherein the first and second sides are coated with a glass powder enamel material as taught by Lee as it would provide the motivation to dissipate heat generated by to solar cell (Lee, Para 0023).
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Carter discloses the module as set forth above, wherein the glass powder enamel material (20 and 40) is at least about 0.15 mm thick on each of the first and second sides of the steel core (30) (Lee, Para 0049, thickness of layer 20 is about 50 to 400 micrometers (0.05 to 0.5 mm); Lee, Para 0064, thickness of layer 40 is about 50 to 500 micrometers (0.05 to 0.5 mm)).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the module of modified Carter with the glass powder enamel material is at least about 0.15 mm thick on each of the first and second sides of the steel core as taught by Lee as it would provide the motivation to form the glass powder enamel material of a suitable material to dissipate heat from the solar cell (Lee, Para 0023).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding Claim 5
Modified Carter discloses the module as set forth above, wherein the thin film semiconductor layer (Carter, Fig. 8, CdTe) comprises cadmium telluride, copper indium gallium selenium, amorphous silicon, perovskites, or combinations thereof (Carter, Fig. 8, CdTe/cadmium telluride; Para 0074).
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Carter discloses the module as set forth above, wherein the semiconductor layer (CdTe) is no more than 10,000 nm thick (Carter, Para 0074, 350 nm).
Regarding Claims 9 and 11
Modified Carter discloses a method of making a thin film photovoltaic module (Carter, Fig. 8, encapsulated module stack 400), the method comprising:
providing a submodule comprising a first glass layer (Fig. 8, Flexible glass), a transparent conducting oxide layer (Fig. 8, TCO), a thin film semiconductor layer (Fig. 8, CdTe), and a metal back contact layer (Carter, Fig. 8, Back contact); and applying a lamination layer (Carter, Fig. 8, encapsulant 430; Para 0087, laminating a suitable encapsulating material) and an electrically insulative backing layer on top of the metal back contact layer (Carter, Fig. 8, Rigid backing 440; Para 0087, lamination material includes may include a flexible glass, polymer or metal foils; Para 0070, discloses rigid or flexible glass is electrically insulating).
Carter does not disclose the electrically insulative backing layer comprising enameled steel (instant claim 9), wherein the electrically insulative backing layer comprises a steel core having a first side and a second side, wherein the first and second sides are coated with a glass powder enamel material (instant claim 11).
Lee teaches a method (Para 0028, solar cell module) wherein the electrically insulative backing layer (Fig. 1, 10/20/30/40/50 - back sheet for solar cell module) comprises a steel core (Fig. 1, substrate layer 30; Para 0050, substrate layer 30 can be stainless steel) having a first side and a second side, wherein the first and second sides are coated with a glass powder enamel material (Fig. 1, heat- dissipation encapsulation 20 and insulating layer 40; Para 0040-0041, heat dissipation encapsulation layer 20 may be polyolefin-based resin with ceramic powder, such as silica; Para 0065, insulating layer 40 may be a polyolefin-based resin with ceramic powder, such as silica; Para 0066, layer 40 may have the same configuration as layer 20; Para 0013, ceramic powder is selected from silica).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrically insulative backing layer of Carter to comprise a steel core having a first side and a second side, wherein the first and second sides are coated with a glass powder enamel material as taught by Lee as it would provide the motivation to dissipate heat generated by to solar cell (Lee, Para 0023).
Regarding Claim 12
Modified Carter discloses the method as set forth above, wherein the glass powder enamel material (20 and 40) is at least about 0.15 mm thick on each of the first and second sides of the steel core (30) (Lee, Para 0049, thickness of layer 20 is about 50 to 400 micrometers (0.05 to 0.5 mm); Lee, Para 0064, thickness of layer 40 is about 50 to 500 micrometers (0.05 to 0.5 mm)).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date to modify the module of modified Carter with the glass powder enamel material is at least about 0.15 mm thick on each of the first and second sides of the steel core as taught by Lee as it would provide the motivation to form the glass powder enamel material of a suitable material to dissipate heat from the solar cell (Lee, Para 0023).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Carter discloses the method as set forth above, wherein the thin film semiconductor layer (Carter, Fig. 8, CdTe) comprises cadmium telluride, copper indium gallium selenium, amorphous silicon, perovskites, or combinations thereof (Carter, Fig. 8, CdTe — cadmium telluride; Para 0074)
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Carter discloses the method as set forth above, wherein the thin film semiconductor layer is no more than 10,000 nm thick (Carter, Para 0075, 350 nm).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Lee, as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 11-14 above, and further in view of KR 10-1782441 to Bonekamp et al. (hereinafter, " Bonekamp").
Regarding claim 7
Modified Carter discloses the module as set forth above, but fails to disclose wherein the lamination layer includes a polyolefin material.
However, Bonekamp teaches a module (Fig. 1, photovoltaic cell 11) wherein the lamination layer (12b) includes a polyolefin material (Para 0185, encapsulation layer 12b on a backsheet 14; Para 0186, suitable films include polyolefin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify t the module of Carter such that the lamination layer includes a polyolefin material, as taught by Bonekamp, as it would provide the motivation to use a material with optical clarity, good physical and moisture resistance properties, moldability and low cost (Dow, Para 0186).
Regarding claim 16
Modified Carter discloses the method as set forth above, but fails to disclose wherein the lamination layer includes a polyolefin material.
However, Bonekamp teaches a module (Fig. 1, photovoltaic cell 11) wherein the lamination layer (12b) includes a polyolefin material (Para 0185, encapsulation layer 12b on a backsheet 14; Para 0186, suitable films include polyolefin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify t the module of Carter such that the lamination layer includes a polyolefin material, as taught by Bonekamp, as it would provide the motivation to use a material with optical clarity, good physical and moisture resistance properties, moldability and low cost (Dow, Para 0186).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Lee, as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 11-14 above, and further in view of KR 10-1830684 to Korean Railroad Research Institute (hereinafter, "KRRI").
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Carter discloses the module as set forth, but fails to disclose wherein the electrically insulative backing layer includes a clip-less mounting feature defined by at least a first hole and second hole formed through the electrically insulative backing layer.
However, KRRI teaches a module (Fig. 6a, module 600) wherein the electrically insulative backing layer (Fig. 6a, backsheet layer, 110) includes a clip-less mounting feature defined by at least a first hole (Fig. 5, power hole 134) and second hole (Fig. 5 power hole 134) formed through the electrically insulative backing layer (Fig. 6a, 110) (Para 0044, power hole 134 formed in the backsheet layer 110 using punch, Para 0046, Fig. 5 shows a busbar 135 with a power hole 134 and another bus bar and power hole that is not labeled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the module of Carter with the electrically insulative backing layer includes a clip-less mounting feature defined by at least a first hole and second hole formed through the electrically insulative backing layer as taught by KRRI as it would provide means to transmit electrical energy generated from the solar cell to the power hole (KRRI, Para 0046).
Regarding Claim 17
Modified Carter discloses the method as set forth above, but fails to disclose forming at least a first and second mounting hole within the electrically insulative backing layer.
However, KRRI teaches a module (Fig. 6a, module 600) wherein the electrically insulative backing layer (Fig. 6a, backsheet layer, 110) includes a clip-less mounting feature defined by at least a first mounting hole (Fig. 5, power hole 134) and second mounting hole (Fig. 5 power hole 134) formed through the electrically insulative backing layer (Fig. 6a, 110) (Para 0044, power hole 134 formed in the backsheet layer 110 using punch, Para 0046, Fig. 5 shows a busbar 135 with a power hole 134 and another bus bar and power hole that is not labeled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrically insulative backing layer of Carter such that it includes a first mounting hole and second mounting hole formed through the electrically insulative backing layer as taught by KRRI as it would provide means to transmit electrical energy generated from the solar cell to the power hole (KRRI, Para 0046).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Lee, as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 9 and 11-14 above, and further in view of US 2012/0211057 to Ting et al. (hereinafter, "Ting").
Regarding claim 15
Modified Carter teaches the method as set forth above but fails to teach that the application of the lamination layer and the electrically insulative backing layer to the submodule includes a two-step pressing process.
Ting teaches a method wherein the application of the lamination layer (Fig. 1, encapsulant sheet 18) and the electrically insulative backing layer (Fig. 1, back sheet laminate 22) to the submodule includes a two-step pressing process (Para 0014, encapsulant 18 is brought together with encapsulant 16 via lamination; Para 0016, back sheet 22 is bonded to encapsulant 14 (includes 16 and 18) via lamination process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Carter such that the application of the lamination layer and the electrically insulative backing layer to the submodule includes a two-step pressing process, as taught by Ting, as it would provide the motivation to seal the back sheet to the other layers in the process of completing the photovoltaic module using a back sheet as a barrier to environmental conditions (Ting, Para 0016).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Carter is directed to making flexible solar cells and that it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add the metal layer of Lee if the goal is to produce a thin, flexible solar cells.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Carter discloses a flexible glass superstrate, Carter itself contemplates the use of rigid backing material (440) comprising rigid glass or metal foils (440) [see Fig. 8 and para. 0087]. Thus, Carter does not limit the photovoltaic module to entirely flexible structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to employ the steel-core enamel coated structure disclosed by Lee as the backing layer of Carter, in order to obtain the benefit of heat dissipation.
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights