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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 as amended and new claim 18 as presented in applicant’s response dated 09 July 2026 are presently under consideration.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the indefiniteness rejections of record which are thus withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the prior art grounds of rejection of claims 1-17 over Kudo et al (US 2021/0043787) in view of Shiao et al (US 2009/0133739) which are thus withdrawn from further consideration but upon performing updated search and consideration of applicant’s newly amended claims, the remaining prior art grounds of rejection are updated or otherwise maintained to show where the new claim limitations are taught, disclosed, or otherwise made obvious.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have raised new issues of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claim 5 recited below.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks where applicable are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding the prior art of Hem-Jensen on pages 10-11 of the response filed 09 July 2026 that Hem-Jensen does not address how to provide a wide range of customized colors for solar cells in an easy and reproducible manner without batch-to-batch color variations and does not contain any suggestion to provide at least two transparent front cover layers, each one containing an effect pigment with a different reflection color, thereby enabling a wide range of possible, customized mixing colors in a simple, reproducible and time- and cost effective way. Applicant also argues Hunger does not describe or suggest using at least two individual coloring layers containing effect pigments of different color and even if combined with Hem-Jensen would not result in the claimed invention and for these reasons claim 1-17 would not be obvious over Hem-Jensen in view of Hunger.
Applicant’s arguments to the prior art of Hem-Jensen and Hunger have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
First regarding applicant’s arguments that Hem-Jensen does not address how to provide a wide range of customized colors for solar cells in an easy and reproducible manner without batch-to-batch color variations, or that the effect pigments enabling a wide range of possible, customized mixing colors in a simple, reproducible and time- and cost effective way, the examiner notes that none of these recited effects are explicitly recited in, necessarily implied by, or required by the claims and the rationale for combining the prior art to achieve the claimed invention may differ from applicant’s own motivations.
As recited in MPEP 2144: IV. RATIONALE DIFFERENT FROM APPLICANT’S IS PERMISSIBLE
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Furthermore, regarding applicant’s additional arguments to the obviousness rejection of claims 1-18 over Hem-Jensen in view of Hunger the examiner notes regarding applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As recited in MPEP 2141:
III. RATIONALES TO SUPPORT REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103
Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations. However, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be “so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.” Id. In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious as of the relevant time to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. The rationales discussed below outline reasoning that may be applied to find obviousness in such cases.
And further as recited in MPEP2141.03:
“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In particular applicant argues the prior art of Hem-Jensen and Hunger do not describe or suggest using at least two individual coloring layers containing effect pigments of different color, but as recited in the rejection below this argument ignores rationale for the combination of art in rendering claim 1 obvious.
Hem-Jensen teaches two transparent front cover layers each one containing a pigment with a different reflection color ([0049], [0098]-[0099], [0101]-[0102], [0116] Figs. 1 and 9 see: masking layer 5 containing a color pigment that can be any color and coloring layer 3 can have multiple colors to provide an image or the like, and masking layer 5 and coloring layer 3 can have different pigment colors to provide such an image or design). Here Hem-Jensen recites the color layers serving the functions of reducing visibility of the solar cells or providing a uniform coloring such as a white, grey or other darker color (Hem-Jensen, [0042], [0098]) and providing an image or design effect to the solar cell module (Hem-Jensen, [0101]-[0102]).
HUNGER discloses pigments for incorporation into EVA layers in solar cell modules (para [0026]) consisting of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating (Abstract). HUNGER teaches these effect pigments can be incorporated into EVA layers in solar cell modules without reducing the overall solar cell efficiency significantly while imparting a special effect or design (HUNGER, [0026]-[0029]). HUNGER further teaches such effect pigments can be provided as white, grey or darker colors known to provide a neutral look or masking effect (HUNGER, [0029], [0042]).
As such, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module of Hem-Jensen in view of HUNGER such that each of said at least one pigments of Hem-Jensen having different specific colors are effect pigments each consisting of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating as in HUNGER (see Abstract) as HUNGER teaches these effect pigments serving the same effect desired by Hem-Jensen of imparting a special effect or design or providing a color as white, grey or darker colors known to provide a neutral look or masking effect, while being incorporated into EVA layers in solar cell modules without reducing the overall solar cell efficiency significantly while imparting said special effect or design (HUNGER, [0026]-[0029], [0042]). Applicant’s arguments to Hem-Jensen in view of Hunger are considered moot in view of the above.
Applicant further argues regarding the prior art of rejection of claims 1-18 over LOURENS VAN DIJK on pages 11-12 of the response dated 09 July 2026 that the prior art of LOURENS VAN DIJK does not describe using pigments of different colors in separate layers mixed to yield different colors.
Applicant’s arguments to the prior art of LOURENS VAN DIJK have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. The prior art of LOURENS VAN DIJK at paras [12] and [16] discloses interference pigment flakes (also called pearlescent pigment flakes) that can be provided in different colours based on their material properties and having the structure of the claimed pigment flake structure at para [19] recites “Interference pigment flakes of different colour can be mixed to yield the desired colour. Alternatively, layers with different types of pigment flakes can be stacked. The overlay may contain absorbing pigments such as nacreous pigments [analogous to the claimed pigment flake structure], metal flake pigments, organic pigments, composite oxide system pigments, metal complex system pigments and the like to achieve a desired appearance”. Layers of different types of stacked pigment flakes includes stacked interference pigment flakes (or pearlescent pigment flakes or nacreous pigments) of different colors as their structure determines their color and different types of pigment flakes are thus different specific colors. As such it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Interference pigment flakes of different colour in the multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in LOURENS VAN DIJK as taught by LOURENS VAN DIJK (paras [19] [29]) to achieve a desired appearance (para [19]).
As recited in MPEP 2144:
I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning).
Applicant further argues “Metal flake pigments and metal complex system pigments are not contained in the front cover layers of the colored solar cells of the present invention. In contrast, NL 2022796 B1 at [20] discloses that "the overlay consists of one single coating to enhance the processing speed," and in this context, NL 2022796 B1 teaches away from the present invention. NL 2022796 B1 at [23] also discloses that "the overlay is applied to the outside of the cover plate, facing away from the solar energy conversion device," again, different from present invention. NL 2022796 B1at [24] further discloses that the overlay is universal: it can be applied on top of every type of solar energy conversion device as an add-on feature, again, unlike the present invention. The Office cites NL 2022796 B1 at [29], but there is no disclosure NL 2022796 B1 about different colors in the sublayers of its device.”
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. First, para [20] is directed to specific embodiments of LOURENS VAN DIJK not relied upon and thus arguments to this point are moot. Second, applicant’s further arguments are directed to where the “the overlay is applied to the outside of the cover plate, facing away from the solar energy conversion device” as being different from applicant’s invention are not found persuasive as the instant claims do not limit the transparent front cover layers as being inside a cover plate and thus arguments to this point are moot. Applicant’s further arguments and remarks are moot as they depend from the arguments rebutted above.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, “wherein two or more transparent front cover layers contain an effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s)” making it unclear how many transparent front cover layers are necessarily present to meet the limitations of claim 5. The limitation “wherein two or more transparent front cover layers contain an effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s)” can be read as requiring at least three transparent front cover layers, two containing an effect pigment and one other transparent front cover layer. Alternatively, the other transparent front cover layer(s) could also refer to the two transparent front cover layers containing an effect pigment having a different color, as the transparent front cover layer(s) are not limited to a single effect pigment of one color each. As such, the scope of claim 5 cannot be reasonably determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hem-Jensen (US 2020/0343397) and further in view of HUNGER et al (US 2020/0335643).
Regarding claim 1 Hem-Jensen discloses a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module comprising two or more transparent front cover layers ([0092], Figs. 1 and 9 see: a transparent or translucent masking layer 5, a transparent or translucent coloring layer 3), each of the transparent front cover layers containing at least one pigment that has a specific color ([0098]-[0099], [0102], [0116] Figs. 1 and 9 see: masking layer 5 containing a color pigment and coloring layer 3 having a color pigment), and wherein at least one of the transparent front cover layers contains at least one pigment having a different color than the pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s) ([0049], [0098]-[0099], [0101]-[0102], [0116] Figs. 1 and 9 see: masking layer 5 containing a color pigment that can be any color and coloring layer 3 can have multiple colors to provide an image or the like, and masking layer 5 and coloring layer 3 can have different pigment colors to provide such an image or design).
Hem-Jensen recites the color layers serve the functions of reducing visibility of the solar cells and providing a uniform coloring such as a white, grey or other darker color (Hem-Jensen, [0042], [0098]) and providing an image or design effect to the solar cell module (Hem-Jensen, [0101]-[0102]).
Hem-Jensen does not explicitly disclose where each of said at least one pigments including the pigment of a different color is an effect pigment and consists of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating.
HUNGER discloses pigments for incorporation into EVA layers in solar cell modules (para [0026]) consisting of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating (Abstract). HUNGER teaches these effect pigments can be incorporated into EVA layers in solar cell modules without reducing the overall solar cell efficiency significantly while imparting a special effect or design (HUNGER, [0026]-[0029]).
HUNGER and Hem-Jensen are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar cell modules incorporating effect pigments.
As such, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module of Hem-Jensen in view of HUNGER such that each of said at least one pigments of Hem-Jensen having different specific colors are effect pigments each consisting of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating as in HUNGER (see Abstract) as HUNGER teaches these effect pigments serving the same effect desired by Hem-Jensen of imparting a special effect or design or providing a color as white, grey or darker colors known to provide a neutral look or masking effect, while being incorporated into EVA layers in solar cell modules without reducing the overall solar cell efficiency significantly while imparting said special effect or design (HUNGER, [0026]-[0029], [0042]).
Regarding claim 2 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein transparent front cover layers are selected from polymer films or sheets (Hem-Jensen, [0049] see: the masking layer and the coloring layer can have their color materials embedded in polymer layers such as EVA).
Regarding claim 3 modified Hem-Jensen discloses colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the transparent front cover layers are selected from EVA, EBA, EMA, EEA, POE, PC, BPO, PVB or TPU films (Hem-Jensen, [0049] see: the masking layer and the coloring layer can have their color materials embedded in polymer layers such as EVA).
Regarding claim 4 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the transparent front cover layers are encapsulant films or a component thereof or together form an encapsulant film or a component thereof ([0049], [0098]-[0099], [0102], [0116] Figs. 1 and 9 see: masking layer 5 containing a color pigment and coloring layer 3 having a color pigment are embedded with intermediate transparent layers 2 of EVA forming encapsulant films).
Regarding claim 5 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein two or more transparent cover layers contains an effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s) (Hem-Jensen, [0049], [0098]-[0099], [0101]-[0102], [0116] Figs. 1 and 9 see: masking layer 5 containing a color pigment that can be any color and coloring layer 3 can have multiple colors to provide an image or the like, and masking layer 5 and coloring layer 3 can have different pigment colors to provide such an image or design).
Regarding claim 6 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the at least one effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s) is selected from silver white, yellow, red, green and blue effect pigments (Hem-Jensen, [0098], [0198] Figs. 1 and 9 see: masking layer 5 can be white and coloring layer 3 can be blue) and HUNGER also teaches said effect pigment can provide a red, green, or blue color (HUNGER, [0039], [0042]).
Regarding claim 7 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, and regarding the limitation “wherein the concentration of the effect pigment in each individual transparent front cover layer is from 0.02 to 1% by weight” HUNGER discloses wherein the effect pigment is preferably in the range of 1-15% by weight (HUNGER, para [0069]) which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 8 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, and regarding the claim 8 recitation “wherein each transparent front cover layer has a transmission >50% for light having a wavelength from 500 nm to 800 nm” HUNGER discloses in para [0044] the effect pigments and/or the effect pigment layer of the invention preferably have a transparency for radiation relevant for the specific solar cell or solar cell module, preferably for radiation in the range of 260 to 1200 nm, of at least 30%, preferably >80% which entirely encompasses applicant’s claimed range. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 9 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, and HUNGER discloses wherein the thickness of each individual transparent front cover layer containing the effect pigment has a thickness of 5 µm to 1000 µm (HUNGER, [0070] see: effect pigments can be present in films with thicknesses of 20 μm thick, 100 μm thick, or even 200 μm).
Regarding claim 10 modified Hem-Jensen discloses colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, and HUNGER discloses wherein the effect pigments are selected from pearlescent pigments, interference pigments and multilayer pigments (HUNGER, [0051] see: effect pigments include pearlescent pigments, interference pigments, and/or multi-layer pigments).
Regarding claim 11 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, and HUNGER discloses wherein the effect pigments are based on synthetic or natural mica, flake-form glass substrates, flake-form SiO2 substrates or flake-form Al2O3 substrates (HUNGER, [0052] see: effect pigments include substrates of synthetic or natural mica, flake-form glass substrates, flake-form SiO2 substrates or flake-form Al2O3 substrates).
Regarding claim 12 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 11, and HUNGER discloses wherein the flake-form substrate is coated with one or more layers of metal oxides and/or metal oxide hydrates of Ti, Sn, Si, AI, Zr, Fe, Cr or Zn (HUNGER, [0057], [0059] see: effect pigments include metal oxide coatings such as titanium dioxide and tin dioxide).
Regarding claim 13 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1 comprising the following components:
(i) two or more transparent front cover layers, each of the transparent front cover layers containing at least one effect pigment that has a specific color and consists of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating, wherein at least one of the transparent front cover layers contains at least one effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s) (see rejection of claim 1 above for these limitations),
(ii) optionally one or more further transparent layers at the front side of the solar cell (Hem-Jensen, [0091]-[0092], Figs. 1 and 9 see: front side intermediate transparent layers 2),
(iii) one or more solar cells, or an array of solar cells which are electrically interconnected by conducting parts, preferably by bus bars (Hem-Jensen, [0091]-[0092], Figs. 1 and 9 see: solar cells layer 1),
(iv) optionally a rear encapsulant sheet (Hem-Jensen, [0091]-[0092], Figs. 1 and 9 see: rear intermediate transparent layer 2),
(v) a rear sheet (Hem-Jensen, [0092], Figs. 1 and 9 see: backsheet/background layer 4.
Regarding claim 14 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 13, wherein the rear sheet is black or has dark color ([0092], [0095]-[0096] Figs. 1 and 9 see: backsheet/background layer 4 has a dark color or is black), and/or the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module comprises an additional sheet or an encapsulant film provided between the solar cell(s) or solar cell array and the rear sheet, wherein said additional sheet or encapsulant film is black or has dark color.
Regarding claim 15 modified Hem-Jensen discloses a process for preparing the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, comprising the steps of laminating two or more transparent front cover layers ([0092], Figs. 1 and 9 see: laminated transparent or translucent masking layer 5 with transparent or translucent coloring layer 3), each of said transparent front cover layers containing at least one effect pigment that has a specific color ([0098]-[0099], [0102], [0116] Figs. 1 and 9 see: masking layer 5 containing a color pigment and coloring layer 3 having a color pigment), and wherein at least one of the transparent front cover layers contains an effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s) ([0049], [0098]-[0099], [0101]-[0102], [0116] Figs. 1 and 9 see: masking layer 5 containing a color pigment that can be any color and coloring layer 3 can have multiple colors to provide an image or the like, and masking layer 5 and coloring layer 3 can have different pigment colors to provide such an image or design) and HUNGER further teaches where the effect pigments consist of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating (HUNGER, Abstract) as further explained in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16 modified Hem-Jensen discloses process according to claim 15, wherein the lamination steps are carried out by applying heat and/or pressure, or using an adhesive or a binding agent or layer (Hem-Jensen, [0092] see: lamination can be done in a hot laminating process).
Regarding claim 17 modified Hem-Jensen discloses an architectural installation or a device comprising one or more colored solar cells or colored solar cell modules according to claim 1, which is selected from the group consisting of windows, doors, building facades, building roofs or floors, walls, structural glass, curtain walls, showrooms, car roofs, car bodies, mobile phones, hand-held PC's, plug-in solar modules, roof tiles, solar panels, PV fences, military devices, radio sets, radio equipment, music boxes, power banks, watches, eyeglasses and goggles (Hem-Jensen [0134] see: the colored solar cell modules can be installed as a building roof or roofing tile).
Regarding claim 18 modified Hem-Jensen discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, and HUNGER discloses wherein the transparent front cover layers contain one or more light scattering particles selected from silica spheres or flour, spherical silicone resin powder, BaSO4, Al2O3, BaMgAIOx or Eu-doped BaMgAIOx particles (paras [0052]-[0054] see: Al2O3 particles) and regarding said particles being present at 0.01 to 1.5% by weight, HUNGER recites such particles present preferably in the range of 1-15% by weight (HUNGER, para [0069]) which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOURENS VAN DIJK (NL 2022796B1).
Regarding claim 1 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses a colored solar cell or colored solar cell module comprising two or more transparent front cover layers ([29], [69], Fig. 2A see: colour coating 214 can be formed of multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in a coating, lacquer, or varnish considered to structurally be “two or more transparent front cover layers”), each of the transparent front cover layers containing at least one effect pigment that has a specific color and consists of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating ([16] see: pigment flakes are for example interference pigment flakes of mica coated with TiO2), and regarding the claim 1 limitation “wherein at least one of the transparent front cover layers contains at least one effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s)” LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses Interference pigment flakes of different type/colour can be stacked to achieve a desired appearance (para [19]) and formed of multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in a coating, lacquer, or varnish (para [29]). As such it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Interference pigment flakes of different colour in the multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in LOURENS VAN DIJK as taught by LOURENS VAN DIJK (paras [19] [29]) to achieve a desired appearance (para [19]).
Regarding claim 2 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein transparent front cover layers are selected from polymer films or sheets (paras [29]-[31] see: the pigment flakes are provided in one or more sublayers of the overlay each within a polymer binder and thus considered polymer films or sheets).
Regarding claim 3 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the transparent front cover layers are selected from EVA, EBA, EMA, EEA, POE, PC, BPO, PVB or TPU films (paras [29]-[31] see: the pigment flakes are provided in one or more sublayers of the overlay each within a polymer binder of a transparent material such as polyurethane, vinyl acetate/ethylene).
Regarding claim 4 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the transparent front cover layers are encapsulant films or a component thereof or together form an encapsulant film or a component thereof (paras [29]-[31], Fig. 2A see: the pigment flakes are provided in one or more sublayers of the overlay each within a polymer binder of a transparent material such as polyurethane, vinyl acetate/ethylene which are considered encapsulant films or a component thereof).
Regarding claim 5 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein two or more transparent cover layers contain an effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s) (paras [19] [29] see: Interference pigment flakes of different type/colour can be stacked to achieve a desired appearance).
Regarding claim 6 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the at least one effect pigment that has a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s) is selected from silver white, yellow, red, green and blue effect pigments (Fig. 6, paras [75]-[77] see: pigments can provide yellow, red, green and blue colors).
Regarding claim 7 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, and regarding the claim 7 recitation “wherein the concentration of the effect pigment in each individual transparent front cover layer is from 0.02 to 1% by weight” LOURENS VAN DIJK teaches in para [30] that the interference pigment flakes have a content of between 0.01% and 35% based on the total weight of the overlay which entirely encompasses applicant’s claimed range. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 8 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, and regarding the claim 8 recitation “wherein each transparent front cover layer has a transmission >50% for light having a wavelength from 500 nm to 800 nm” LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses in para [36] a total power transmitted through the overlay is 60% to 99.5% of a total incident power of sunlight where the total incident power of sunlight refers to the relevant part of the solar spectrum, for a c-Si PV module this is the range between 300-1200 nm. This range substantially overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 9 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of each individual transparent front cover layer containing the effect pigment has a thickness of 5 µm to 1000 µm (para [20] see: overlay has a layer thickness in a range from about 0.5 to 200 µm, preferably between 10 and 70 µm).
Regarding claim 10 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the effect pigments are selected from pearlescent pigments, interference pigments and multilayer pigments ([16] see: pigment flakes are for example interference pigment flakes, pearlescent pigment flakes).
Regarding claim 11 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the effect pigments are based on synthetic or natural mica, flake-form glass substrates, flake-form SiO2 substrates or flake-form Al2O3 substrates ([16] see: pigment flakes are for example interference pigment flakes of natural or synthetic mica coated with TiO2).
Regarding claim 12 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 11, wherein the flake-form substrate is coated with one or more layers of metal oxides and/or metal oxide hydrates of Ti, Sn, Si, AI, Zr, Fe, Cr or Zn ([16] see: pigment flakes are for example interference pigment flakes of mica coated with TiO2).
Regarding claim 13 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, comprising the following components:
(i) two or more transparent front cover layers ([29], [69], Fig. 2A see: colour coating 214 can be formed of multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in a coating, lacquer, or varnish considered to structurally be “two or more transparent front cover layers”), each of said transparent front cover layers containing at least one effect pigment that has a specific color and consists of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating ([16] see: pigment flakes are for example interference pigment flakes of mica coated with TiO2), and regarding the claim 13 limitation “wherein at least one of the transparent front cover layers contains at least one effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s)” LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses Interference pigment flakes of different type/colour can be stacked to achieve a desired appearance (para [19]) and formed of multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in a coating, lacquer, or varnish (para [29]). As such it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Interference pigment flakes of different colour in the multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in LOURENS VAN DIJK as taught by LOURENS VAN DIJK (paras [19] [29]) to achieve a desired appearance (para [19]).
LOURENS VAN DIJK further discloses
(ii) optionally one or more further transparent layers at the front side of the solar cell (Fig. 2A see: cover plate 210, top coating 216, top encapsulation sheet 208),
(iii) one or more solar cells, or an array of solar cells which are electrically interconnected by conducting parts, (Fig. 2A see: photovoltaic device 206),
(iv) optionally a rear encapsulant sheet (Fig. 2A see: bottom encapsulant layer 204),
(v) a rear sheet (Fig. 2A see: transparent or a non-transparent substrate 202).
Regarding claim 14 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 13, wherein the rear sheet is black or has dark color (para [66] see: the back sheet may be black), and/or the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module comprises an additional sheet or an encapsulant film provided between the solar cell(s) or solar cell array and the rear sheet, wherein said additional sheet or encapsulant film is black or has dark color.
Regarding claim 15 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses a process for preparing the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1 comprising the steps of laminating two or more transparent front cover layers ([29], [69], Fig. 2A see: colour coating 214 can be formed of multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in a coating, lacquer, or varnish considered to be “laminating two or more transparent front cover layers”), each of said transparent front cover layers containing at least one effect pigment that has a specific color and consists of a transparent or semi- transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi- transparent materials and optionally a post coating ([16] see: pigment flakes are for example interference pigment flakes of mica coated with TiO2), and regarding the claim 15 limitation “wherein at least one of the transparent front cover layers contains at least one effect pigment having a different color than the effect pigment(s) contained in the other transparent front cover layer(s)” LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses Interference pigment flakes of different type/colour can be stacked to achieve a desired appearance (para [19]) and formed of multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in a coating, lacquer, or varnish (para [29]). As such it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Interference pigment flakes of different colour in the multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in LOURENS VAN DIJK as taught by LOURENS VAN DIJK (paras [19] [29]) to achieve a desired appearance (para [19]).
Regarding claim 16 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the process according to claim 15, wherein the lamination steps are carried out by applying heat and/or pressure, or using an adhesive or a binding agent or layer ([29]-[31], [69], Fig. 2A see: colour coating 214 can be formed of multiple sublayers of pigment flakes in a coating, lacquer, or varnish applied with a binder (binding agent)).
Regarding claim 17 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses an architectural installation or a device comprising one or more colored solar cells or colored solar cell modules according to claim 1, which is selected from the group consisting of windows, doors, building facades, building roofs or floors, walls, structural glass, curtain walls, showrooms, car roofs, car bodies, mobile phones, hand-held PC's, plug-in solar modules, roof tiles, solar panels, PV fences, military devices, radio sets, radio equipment, music boxes, power banks, watches, eyeglasses and goggles (paras [4], [23], [46] see: the PV module can be incorporated into a roof or façade, building components such as tiles and filler panels, and applied to vehicles, fences or other constructions).
Regarding claim 18 LOURENS VAN DIJK discloses the colored solar cell or colored solar cell module according to claim 1, wherein the transparent front cover layers contain one or more light scattering particles selected from silica spheres or flour, spherical silicone resin powder, BaSO4, Al2O3, BaMgAIOx or Eu-doped BaMgAIOx particles ([16] see: reflective particles can include BaSO4, Al2O3) and regarding the claimed range of the particles being present at 0.01 to 1.5% by weight, LOURENS VAN DIJK teaches in para [30] that the particles have a content of between 0.01% and 35% based on the total weight of the overlay which entirely encompasses applicant’s claimed range. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights