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
Claim(s) 21-40 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 have been canceled.
Claim(s) 40 has been amended.
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) 21-29, 31-34 and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2008280189-A, Murata in view of “Towards improved cover glasses for photovoltaic devices”, Alsopp et al. (hereinafter “Allsopp”).
Regarding claims 21, 23, 29, 31, 36 and 38
Murata teaches a solar module [Pages 1-2] comprising:
a front side unit/substrate having thickness of less than 150 µm or less (500 µm or less) [Pages 2 and 9];
a solar cell [Page 2]; and
an adhesive layer applied two-dimensionally atop the frontside substrate (a silicon semiconductor is sandwiched between glass substrates through a resin) [Page 2].
With regards to the limitation “a surface weight below 500 g/m2”, Murata teaches a density of, for example, 1 g/cm3 (3 g/cm3 or less) and a thickness of 0.5 mm or less (500 µm or less) [Page 9]. Therefore, Murata teaches a surface weight of 500 g/cm2 or less.
Further, Murata teaches the importance of reducing the weight of the glass substrate as it contributes to the overall weight of the entire solar cell [Page 9].
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to optimize the weight of the substrate such that the overall weight of the solar cell is reduced. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Murata further teaches that at least one of the following is satisfied:
the material of the frontside substrate comprises a glass having a glass composition [Page 1];
the glass composition contains no CaO or contains CaO with a proportion of less than 50 ppm (0-10% CaO, and therefore reads on the limitation “contains no CaO”) [Abstract, Page 5 and Table 1];
the glass composition contains no MgO or contains MgO with a proportion of less than 50 ppm (0-10% MgO, and therefore reads on the limitation “contains no MgO”) [Abstract, Page 5 and Table 1];
the glass composition contains no BaO or contains BaO with a proportion of less than 50 ppm (0-25% BaO, and therefore reads on the limitation “contains no BaO”) [Abstract, Page 6 and Table 1];
the glass composition contains no SrO or contains SrO with a proportion of less than 50 ppm (0-25% SrO, and therefore reads on the limitation “contains no SrO”) [Abstract, Pages 5-6 and Table 1];
the glass composition contains no antimony (Sb) or contains antimony (Sb) with a proportion of less than 50 ppm (0 to 1% in order to avoid an increase in the density of the glass) [Page 7]; or
the glass composition contains no arsenic (As) or contains arsenic (As) with a proportion of less than 50 ppm (0 to 1% As2O3, and therefore reads on the limitation “contains no arsenic” [Page 7].
Murata also teaches that the material of the frontside substrate comprises a glass having a glass composition in which the following is satisfied:
the glass composition contains TiO2 in a proportion of 0.5 to 10 percent by weight (0 to 10%) [Page 7];
the glass composition contains Al2O3 in a proportion of 0 to 15 percent by weight (3 to 30%) [Page 5];]
the glass composition contains SiO2 in a proportion of 30 to 80 percent by weight (30 to 70%) [Page 5]; or
the glass composition contains B2O3 in a proportion of 3 to 20 percent by weight (0 to 10%) [Page 5].
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].
Murata is silent to the material exhibiting a transmittance curve T(A) that forms a transition from a lower transmittance Tlow to an upper transmittance Tup and has an intervening intermediate transmittance Ttr= 50% in a wavelength range from 302 nm to 322 nm.
However, because the glass composition, thickness and weight of the frontside substrate disclosed in Murata is identical to the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, the court has held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
In the alternative, Allsopp teaches a solar module comprising a front side substrate (glass cover glass) [Fig. 1, Abstract and Pages 1188-1189], wherein the materials within the solar module are susceptible to UV induced discoloration and delamination which induces degradation of the laminate materials, such as the EVA adhesive/encapsulant, eventually leading to delamination and module failure [Pages 1188-1189]. Said UV degradation also impacting the efficiency of the solar cell material itself [Pages 1188-1189].
Allsopp further teaches optimizing the cover glass composition in order to enhance the UV protection of the solar module components thereby increasing the module service lifetimes, and to also re-emit a proportion of the absorbed UV photon energy as visible photons thereby increasing the module efficiency [Abstract].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the light transmittance curve in the UV wavelength range of the front side substrate (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired UV protection and photovoltaic conversion efficiency. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner further notes to Figure 1 of Allsop, wherein a cover glass material exhibiting a transmittance curve T(A) that forms a transition from a lower transmittance Tlow to an upper transmittance Tup and has an intervening intermediate transmittance Ttr= 50% in a wavelength range below 400 nm is disclosed.
As an optical transmittance curve having the light transmittance disclosed in Fig. 1 of Allsopp leads to enhanced UV protection and PV module efficiency, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious to optimize the composition of Murata in order to achieve such a light transmission curve. It is further noted that Murata is also concerned with minimizing deterioration of the solar module laminate layers due to the transmittance in the ultraviolet region (see Murata, Page 7, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 22
Modified Murata teaches the frontside substrate as set forth above, wherein the frontside substrate has a surface weight of below 400 g/m2 [Murata, Page 9].
With regards to the limitation “wherein the intermediate transmittance Ttr= 50% is in a wavelength range from 304 nm to 318 nm”, modified Murata teaches that the materials/layers within the solar module are susceptible to UV induced discoloration and delamination which induces degradation of the laminate materials, such as the EVA adhesive/encapsulant, eventually leading to delamination and module failure [Murata, Page 7; Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189]. Said UV degradation also impacting the efficiency of the solar cell material itself [Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189].
Modified Murata further teaches optimizing the cover glass composition in order to enhance the UV protection of the solar module components thereby increasing the module service lifetimes, and to also re-emit a proportion of the absorbed UV photon energy as visible photons thereby increasing the module efficiency [Allsopp, Abstract].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the light transmittance curve in the UV wavelength range of the front side substrate (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired UV protection and photovoltaic conversion efficiency. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner further notes to Figure 1 of Allsop, wherein a cover glass material exhibiting an intervening intermediate transmittance Ttr= 50% in a wavelength range from 304 nm to 318 nm.
As an optical transmission having the light transmittance disclosed in Fig. 1 of Allsopp leads to enhanced UV protection and PV module efficiency, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious to optimize the composition of Murata in order to achieve such a light transmission curve. It is further noted that Murata is also concerned with minimizing deterioration of the solar module laminate layers due to the transmittance in the ultraviolet region (see Murata, Page 7, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 24
Modified Murata teaches the frontside substrate as set forth above.
With regards to the limitation “wherein the transmittance curve T(A) falls below a value of Ttr= 10% at a wavelength in a wavelength range from 288 nm to 312 nm, and/or wherein the transmittance curve T(A) rises above a value of Ttr= 90% at a wavelength in a wavelength range from 322 nm to 400 nm”, modified Murata teaches that the materials/layers within the solar module are susceptible to UV induced discoloration and delamination which induces degradation of the laminate materials, such as the EVA adhesive/encapsulant, eventually leading to delamination and module failure [Murata, Page 7; Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189]. Said UV degradation also impacting the efficiency of the solar cell material itself [Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189].
Modified Murata further teaches optimizing the cover glass composition in order to enhance the UV protection of the solar module components thereby increasing the module service lifetimes, and to also re-emit a proportion of the absorbed UV photon energy as visible photons thereby increasing the module efficiency [Allsopp, Abstract].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the light transmittance curve in the UV wavelength range of the front side substrate (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired UV protection and photovoltaic conversion efficiency. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner further notes to Figure 1 of Allsop, wherein the transmittance curve T(A) falls below a value of Ttr= 10% at a wavelength in a wavelength range from 288 nm to 312 nm, and/or wherein the transmittance curve T(A) rises above a value of Ttr= 90% at a wavelength in a wavelength range from 322 nm to 400 nm.
As an optical transmission having the light transmittance disclosed in Fig. 1 of Allsopp leads to enhanced UV protection and PV module efficiency, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious to optimize the composition of Murata in order to achieve such a light transmission curve. It is further noted that Murata is also concerned with minimizing deterioration of the solar module laminate layers due to the transmittance in the ultraviolet region (see Murata, Page 7, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 25
Modified Murata teaches the frontside substrate as set forth above.
With regards to the limitation “wherein the lower transmittance Tlow is lower than 5%, and/or wherein the upper transmittance Tup is greater than 85%”, modified Murata teaches that the materials/layers within the solar module are susceptible to UV induced discoloration and delamination which induces degradation of the laminate materials, such as the EVA adhesive/encapsulant, eventually leading to delamination and module failure [Murata, Page 7; Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189]. Said UV degradation also impacting the efficiency of the solar cell material itself [Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189].
Modified Murata further teaches optimizing the cover glass composition in order to enhance the UV protection of the solar module components thereby increasing the module service lifetimes, and to also re-emit a proportion of the absorbed UV photon energy as visible photons thereby increasing the module efficiency [Allsopp, Abstract].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the light transmittance curve in the UV wavelength range of the front side substrate (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired UV protection and photovoltaic conversion efficiency. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner further notes to Figure 1 of Allsop, wherein the lower transmittance Tlow is lower than 5%, and/or wherein the upper transmittance Tup is greater than 85%.
As an optical transmission having the light transmittance disclosed in Fig. 1 of Allsopp leads to enhanced UV protection and PV module efficiency, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious to optimize the composition of Murata in order to achieve such a light transmission curve. It is further noted that Murata is also concerned with minimizing deterioration of the solar module laminate layers due to the transmittance in the ultraviolet region (see Murata, Page 7, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 26
Modified Murata teaches the frontside substrate as set forth above.
With regards to the limitation “wherein the lower transmittance Tlow is at a wavelength of at least 250 nm, and/or wherein the upper transmittance Tup, is at a wavelength of at most 375 nm”, modified Murata teaches that the materials/layers within the solar module are susceptible to UV induced discoloration and delamination which induces degradation of the laminate materials, such as the EVA adhesive/encapsulant, eventually leading to delamination and module failure [Murata, Page 7; Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189]. Said UV degradation also impacting the efficiency of the solar cell material itself [Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189].
Modified Murata further teaches optimizing the cover glass composition in order to enhance the UV protection of the solar module components thereby increasing the module service lifetimes, and to also re-emit a proportion of the absorbed UV photon energy as visible photons thereby increasing the module efficiency [Allsopp, Abstract].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the light transmittance curve in the UV wavelength range of the front side substrate (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired UV protection and photovoltaic conversion efficiency. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner further notes to Figure 1 of Allsop, wherein the lower transmittance Tlow is at a wavelength of at least 250 nm, and/or wherein the upper transmittance Tup, is at a wavelength of at most 375 nm.
As an optical transmission having the light transmittance disclosed in Fig. 1 of Allsopp leads to enhanced UV protection and PV module efficiency, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious to optimize the composition of Murata in order to achieve such a light transmission curve. It is further noted that Murata is also concerned with minimizing deterioration of the solar module laminate layers due to the transmittance in the ultraviolet region (see Murata, Page 7, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claims 27 and 28
Modified Murata teaches the front side substrate as set forth above.
Modified Murata is silent to the transmittance curve at at least one point having a slope of 2.8 percentage points/nm (instant claim 27).
Modified Murata is also silent to the transmittance curve after irradiation for 7 hours with light in a wavelength range from 250 nm to 600 nm having a shift of less than 5.0 nm, and/or wherein the transmittance curve after irradiation for 100 hours with UV-A light at 210 W/m2, UV-B light at 170 W/m2 and UV-C light at 250 W/m2 having a shift of less than 5.0 nm (instant claim 28).
However, modified Murata teaches that the materials/layers within the solar module are susceptible to UV induced discoloration and delamination which induces degradation of the laminate materials, such as the EVA adhesive/encapsulant, eventually leading to delamination and module failure [Murata, Page 7; Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189]. Said UV degradation also impacting the efficiency of the solar cell material itself [Allsopp, Pages 1188-1189].
Modified Murata further teaches optimizing the cover glass composition in order to enhance the UV protection of the solar module components thereby increasing the module service lifetimes, and to also re-emit a proportion of the absorbed UV photon energy as visible photons thereby increasing the module efficiency [Allsopp, Abstract].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the light transmittance curve in the UV wavelength range of the front side substrate (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired UV protection and photovoltaic conversion efficiency. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 32
Modified Murata teaches the frontside substrate as set forth above, wherein the material of the frontside substrate has a density lower than 3.25 g/cm3 [Murata, Page 9].
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 33
Modified Murata teaches the frontside substrate as set forth above, wherein the material of the frontside substrate has a modulus of elasticity higher than 68 GPa (25 GPa or more) [Murata, Page 10], and/or wherein the material of the frontside substrate has a modulus of elasticity lower than 78 GPa (25 GPa or more) [Murata, Page 10].
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 34
Modified Murata teaches the frontside substrate as set forth above, wherein the material of the frontside substrate has a coefficient of thermal expansion in a temperature range from 20°C to 300°C of greater than 4x10-6 K-1 (50 to 90 x10-7/°C) [Murata, Page 8].
However, the coefficient of thermal expansion can be optimized in order to achieve the desired peeling resistance [Murata, pages 2 and 3]. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the coefficient of thermal expansion (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired peeling resistance. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 37
Modified Murata teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the adhesive layer comprises EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate) [Murata, Page 2].
Regarding claim 39
Modified Murata teaches the solar module as set forth above, further comprising a backside element, wherein the solar cell is disposed between the backside element and the frontside substrate (a silicon semiconductor is sandwiched between glass substrates through a resin or the like) [Murata, Page 2].
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Allsopp as applied to claims 21-29, 31-34 and 36-39 above, and further in view of US 2019/0352217 A1, Lautenschläger et al. (hereinafter “Lautenschläger”).
Regarding claim 30
Modified Murata does not teach the material of the frontside substrate comprising a borosilicate glass having a glass composition that does not contain any cerium oxide or contains cerium oxide with a proportion of less than 500 ppm.
Lautenschläger teaches a glass that may be used in a variety of applications including as a cover glass for solar cells [paras. 0005 and 0023], wherein the glass composition comprises a borosilicate glass having a glass composition that does not contain any cerium oxide or contains cerium oxide with a proportion of less than 500 ppm [Table 1 and para. 0043].
The glass composition disclosed in Lautenschläger exhibiting high transmittance in the wavelength range from 200 nm to 1500 nm, low coefficient of thermal expansion, high chemical resistance, and mechanical strength and low refractive index, and which can be produced at low costs [para. 0045].
Modified Murata and Lautenschläger are analogous inventions in the field of glass compositions exhibiting high light transmittance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the glass composition of the frontside substrate in modified Murata to comprise the borosilicate glass of Lautenschläger for the purpose of improving the light transmittance for electromagnetic radiation in the entire range of wavelengths from 200 nm to 1500 nm, the low coefficient of thermal expansion, chemical resistance, and mechanical strength and low refractive index, and costs [paras. 0045 and 0059].
It is noted that the borosilicate glass disclosed in Lautenschläger meets with the light transmission curve requirements set forth in claim 21 [see Figs. 1 and 2 of Lautenschläger].
Claim(s) 35 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Allsopp as applied to claims 21-29, 31-34 and 36-39 above, and further in view of WO 2014/192010 A1, Joshi et al. (hereinafter “Joshi”).
Regarding claim 35
Modified Murata is silent to the frontside substrate has a dimension greater than 35 cm, and/or wherein the frontside substrate has a second dimension greater than 65 cm.
Joshi teaches a solar module comprising a front side glass substrate (corresponding to superstrate 60) having a dimension of 10 cm to 150 nm [paras. 0053-0055].
Modified Murata and Joshi are analogous inventions in the field of solar modules comprising glass frontside substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the frontside substrate of modified Murata to comprise a dimension greater than 35 cm, as in Joshi, as such is a known and suitable size for frontside substrates for use in solar modules.
Regarding claim 40
Modified Murata does not teach the backside element being in the form of a module frame.
Joshi teaches a solar module comprising a backside element in the form of a module frame, said frame sealing the solar module [para. 0037].
Modified Murata and Joshi are analogous inventions in the field of solar modules comprising glass frontside substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar module of modified Murata to comprise a frame as a backside element, as disclosed in Joshi, for purposes of sealing the solar module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the density values for glasses taught by Murata and Allsop illustrate that the art prior to Applicant's disclosure did not disclose or enable a substrate having a surface weight of below 500 g/m², as recited by Applicant's claims, because the density of the glasses is too high to provide such a weight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Murata teaches a density of, for example, 1 g/cm3 (3 g/cm3 or less) and a thickness of 0.5 mm or less (500 µm or less) [Page 9]. Therefore, Murata teaches a surface weight of 500 g/cm2 or less. 1 g/cm3 was merely an illustrative example showing that Murata’s disclosed parameters permit the claimed surface weight. The range of Murata, 3 g/cm3 or less, encompasses densities below 3 g/cm3, including 1 g/cm3.
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].
Applicant argues that, while the Office is correct that reducing surface weight is generally desirable, doing SO is not straightforward because lowering thickness or (surface)weight typically compromises other critical properties, such as the UV edge and solarization resistance.
Applicant further argues that achieving these properties becomes increasingly difficult as the glass becomes thinner or lighter. Applicant further states that it is not a simple matter to just reduce the thickness of a substrate to reduce the weight while maintaining the desired transmittance properties.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Murata already discloses a frontside glass substrate having a surface weight that falls within the claimed range. Furthermore, Murata teaches that reducing the weight of the glass substrate contributes to reducing the overall weight of the device. Thus, Murata contemplates reducing substrate thickness and weight. One would have found obvious to optimize such parameter through routine experimentation within the range disclose in Murata with reasonable expectation of success.
While Murata does not specifically disclose the recited light transmittance values, it is well known in the art that light transmittance of glass substrates is affected by the glass composition (see Allsopp). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art, implementing the thin glass substrate of Murata, would have found obvious to optimize the light transmittance of the glass substrate (e.g., by selecting material parameters) in order to achieve the desired UV protection and PV conversion efficiency (Allsopp, Abstract and pages 1188-1189).
Applicant argues that the density of a glass is related to its composition and the Office does not provide any evidence or reasoning how one skilled in the art could expect to reduce the glass density to 1 g/cm³ and have the recited transmittance properties.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Murata discloses a frontside glass substrate having a glass composition, thickness and weight that is identical to the one claimed. As set forth above, Murata teaches a density of 3 g/cm3 [Page 9]. 1 g/cm3 was merely an illustrative example showing that Murata’s disclosed parameters permit the claimed surface weight. The range of Murata, 3 g/cm3 or less, encompasses densities below 3 g/cm3, including 1 g/cm3. 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].
Furthermore, Murata teaches a glass composition having individual components that are identical to those claimed, their respective amounts within the composition falling within the claimed ranges.
Applicant argues that, following the Office's reasoning regarding density, it would be obvious to produce a material that has the strength of titanium and the density of an aerogel by simply reducing the density of a material that already has the strength of titanium.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not propose a fundamentally new material having incompatible properties. Rather, Murata expressly teaches front side glass substrates having specified compositional ranges, thickness values, and densities. Said parameters including values which fall within the claimed ranges. Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that Murata’s composition would not inherently possess the claimed transmission properties.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The rejection further shows that selecting and optimizing parameters within Murata’s disclosed structure, would have been within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Allsopp, the reference expressly teaches optimizing the cover glass composition in order to enhance the UV protection of the solar module components and improve module efficiency. Because UV transmission of glass is directly dependent on glass composition, Allsopp recognizes the transmittance as a controllable parameter. The Office does not merely rely on inherency but provides a routine-optimization analysis which Applicant does not appear to have addressed.
Regarding Fig. 1 of Allsopp, the curve clearly indicates that approximately 50% of transmission occurs within a wavelength region below 400nm. The Examiner acknowledges that Fig. 1 of Allsopp does not disclose with precision 50% of light transmission in a range of 302 nm to 322 nm. However, the rejection does not solely rely on the disclosure of Fig. 1. Rather, as previously explained, Allsopp discloses optimizing the cover glass composition in order to enhance the UV protection of the solar module components and improve module efficiency. Because UV transmission of glass is directly dependent on glass composition, Allsopp recognizes the transmittance as a controllable parameter. The Office does not merely rely on inherency but provides a routine-optimization analysis which Applicant does not appear to have addressed.
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