DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The response of December 23, 2025 is considered herein.
Claims 1-5 remain pending and have been considered on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al (“Experimental investigation and annual overall performance comparison of different photovoltaic vacuum glazings”, Non-patent literature, supplied by the Applicant in the IDS of September 24, 2024), in view of BARR et al (US PG PUB 2019/0036480), DEN BOER (US PG PUB 2012/0317900), JEONG et al (US PG PUB 2013/0074918) and SYAFIQ et al (“Synthesis of transparent thermal insulation coating for efficient solar cells”, Non-patent literature, supplied by the Applicant in the IDS of September 24, 2024).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, HUANG et al teaches a thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel (figures 1 and 9, HPVVG, “photovoltaic vacuum glazing” for low-energy buildings, abstract), comprising:
a photovoltaic glazing comprising glazing (left, exterior surface glass of figure 9), solar cell sheet (solar cells of figure 9), laminating film (PVB surrounding the cells of figure 9) and rear glazing (2nd glass from left of figure 9); and
a sound and thermal insulation module (air gap and portion of figure 9 to the right of the air gap), wherein the sound and thermal insulation module comprises vacuum glazing, hollow glazing or a combination thereof (HPVVG structure, necessarily including hollow and vacuum glazing, also fulfilling claim 2), and wherein the sound and thermal insulation module is adhered to the rear side of the photovoltaic glazing (figure 9 shows a single module, necessarily comprising adherence between the glazings of the left side of the air gap to the glazings of the right side of the air gap);
HUANG et al is silent to the use of a low-iron glazing as the external glass glazing, the presence of specialized metal conductors, wherein the solar cell sheet is hermetically sealed between the low-iron glazing and the rear glazing, a thermal insulation layer coated on the front surface of the photovoltaic glazing, wherein the thermal insulation layer includes a passive radiative cooling coating material, wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has a light transmission rate of at least 40%, wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel reduces radiation-induced temperature increase by 2-4 degrees Celsius, wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has a thermal transmittance of lower than 0.7 and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient of lower than 0.2 across the panel, and wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has an average power generation of at least 35 W/m2 under illumination intensity of 1000 W/m2.
While conductors would be necessary to not only interconnect the solar cells, but also conduct generated electricity through and out of the device, HUANG et al is silent to the use of “specialized metal conductors”.
DEN BOER et al teaches the use of a photovoltaic window (skylight) comprising a glass substrate enclosure (100, paragraph [0077]), just as in HUANG et al. DEN BOER et al further discloses the use of low-iron glass for the substrate layers to ensure high transmission of light and maximized transmission within the absorber range in paragraphs [0044]-[0046].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the low iron glass of DEN BOER et al for the glazing, glass layer of HUANG et al, so as to enable high transmission of light through the window, but most notably en route to the photovoltaic components. Paragraph [0008] of the instant application correlates the limitation “wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has a light transmission rate of at least 40%” to be realized by the use of low-iron glass. For this reason, the use of this glass as in modified HUANG et al renders a device featuring this claimed functionality. In addition, while modified HUANG et al does not specifically address the claim limitation “wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has a light transmission rate of at least 40%”, this is considered to be an intrinsic property resulting from following the components taught by the reference(s), which are the same as those instantly claimed, absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. As a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Modified HUANG et al is silent to the presence of specialized metal conductors, wherein the solar cell sheet is hermetically sealed between the low-iron glazing and the rear glazing, a thermal insulation layer coated on the front surface of the photovoltaic glazing, wherein the thermal insulation layer includes a passive radiative cooling coating material, wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel reduces radiation-induced temperature increase by 2-4 degrees Celsius, wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has a thermal transmittance of lower than 0.7 and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient of lower than 0.2 across the panel, and wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has an average power generation of at least 35 W/m2 under illumination intensity of 1000 W/m2.
BARR et al teaches a photovoltaic window assembly with a multi-layer glazing, just as in HUANG et al and DEN BOER et al, as discussed in the abstract. BARR et al further teaches the use of nanostructured metals for electrodes within cells of the PV module (paragraph 0064] and the use of thin metal layers to extract power from the window (paragraph [0088] and figures 9A-9F).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize metal conductors within the window of modified HUANG et al, as shown in BARR et al, to provide transparent power generation within the window while enabling power extraction and conduction therein. The use of either of these layers reads on the claimed “specialized metal conductors”.
Modified HUANG et al is silent to the solar cell sheet being hermetically sealed between the low-iron glazing and the rear glazing, a thermal insulation layer coated on the front surface of the photovoltaic glazing, wherein the thermal insulation layer includes a passive radiative cooling coating material, wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel reduces radiation-induced temperature increase by 2-4 degrees Celsius, wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has a thermal transmittance of lower than 0.7 and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient of lower than 0.2 across the panel, and wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has an average power generation of at least 35 W/m2 under illumination intensity of 1000 W/m2.
JEONG et al teaches a photovoltaic window glazing comprising vacuum treatment, just as in HUANG et al, as disclosed in the abstract. JEONG et al teaches the use of vacuum sealing of the window with the photovoltaic material inside (with a frit, paragraph [0025], indicating hermetic sealing occurs) protecting the interior panels from humidity, pollutants and chemicals (paragraph [0027]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to hermetically seal the photovoltaic window layers of HUANG et al, as in JEONG et al, to provide protection from humidity, pollutants and chemicals.
Modified HUANG et al is silent to a thermal insulation layer coated on the front surface of the photovoltaic glazing, wherein the thermal insulation layer includes a passive radiative cooling coating material, wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel reduces radiation-induced temperature increase by 2-4 degrees Celsius, wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has a thermal transmittance of lower than 0.7 and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient of lower than 0.2 across the panel, and wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has an average power generation of at least 35 W/m2 under illumination intensity of 1000 W/m2.
SYAFIQ et al is directed to coatings for glasses within photovoltaic devices (abstract) like those in HUANG et al. SYAFIQ et al teaches the use of a thermal insulation coating on the exterior glass surface of a solar cell (abstract, Section 2 detailing dip coating of the glass panels). SYAFIQ et al teaches the use of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as particles of use therein (interpreted herein as the passivated radiative cooling coating material of claim 1 and claim 4) to provide great thermal insulation, an increased contact angle of water, decreased surface temperature, increased fill factor and increased current density of the solar cells.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a coating of thermal particles (a thermal insulation layer comprising passivated radiative cooling coating material), as in SYAFIQ et al, in the module of modified HUANG et al, so as to provide great thermal insulation, an increased contact angle of water, decreased surface temperature, increased fill factor and increased current density of the solar cells. Regarding the final three limitations of claim 1, the instant application attributes the final three characteristics of the claim to be attributed to the panel as a whole, not individual layers or aspects, as detailed in the instant specification at paragraphs [0043]-[0045] respectively. While modified HUANG et al does not explicitly address the characteristics of the combined panel, as in the final three limitations of claim 1, the same structure and materials are utilized in modified HUANG et al. For this reason, the limitations “the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel reduces radiation-induced temperature increase by 2-4 degrees Celsius”, “wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has a thermal transmittance of lower than 0.7 and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient of lower than 0.2 across the panel”, and “wherein the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel has an average power generation of at least 35 W/m2 under illumination intensity of 1000 W/m2” are considered to be an intrinsic properties resulting from the assembly of component of modified HUANG et al, which are the same as those instantly claimed, absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary. As a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Regarding claim 5, as identified in the rejection of these characteristics in the rejection of claim 1, modified HUANG et al. HUANG et al teaches the thermal-managed photovoltaic glass glazing panel of claim 1 to be of use in low-energy buildings, their exteriors (abstract), and specifically windows (Introduction). Moreover, the panel of claim 1 is identified to render obvious the characteristics of claim 1, as identified in the rejection of claim 1 above. These include “the solar power-generating glass construction material has a light transmission rate of at least 40%; the solar power-generating glass construction material reduces radiation-induced temperature increase by 2-4 degrees Celsius; and the solar power-generating glass construction material has an average power generation rate of at least 35 W/m2 under illumination intensity of 1000 W/m2”, rendering obvious these features based on the disclosure of the panel of modified HUANG et al. As a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth on the record, and because the USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test and compare the prior art to the claimed invention, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al, in view of DEN BOER et al, BARR et al, JEONG et al, SYAFIQ et al and HAMMOND et al (US PG PUB 2017/0317305).
Regarding claim 3, while HUANG et al specifically teaches the use of vacuum glazing and hollow glazing of the sound and thermal insulation module, see figure 9, with sealant within the frame (section 4.1, second paragraph), and BARR et al teaches the use of an edge sealant, but modified HUANG et al is silent to the use of adhesive bonding to connect the vacuum and hollow glazing of the sound and thermal insulation module of HUANG et al.
HAMMOND et al teaches the assembly of a glass stacked photovoltaic module (abstract), just as in HUANG et al. HAMMOND et al expressly teaches the use of transparent adhesive to maintain a vacuum or seal within the device (paragraph [0028]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the transparent adhesive of HAMMOND et al to provide the seal of modified HUANG et al as the use of an adhesive to provide attachment and sealing renders the predictable result of attachment and sealing, as is detailed in the device of HAMMOND et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first half of the first paragraph of page 3 of the remarks, the Applicant argues DEN BOER is directed to concentration of light via a cylindrical lens and thus can only be used as a skylight.
In response to applicant's argument that the teaching of DEN BOER can only be used in reference to fabricating a skylight, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
More specifically, DEN BOER does teach the use of low iron glass within an photovoltaic system (such as that of HUANG et al) which is used in conjunction with lens in a skylight, however, the premise that the low iron glass would only be usable in a concentrated system within a skylight is not reasonable. The low iron glass is taught in DEN BOER to have the benefit of high transmission (a reason for combination) which is beneficial to photovoltaic systems regardless of their use in conjunction with concentrators or skylights. The argument that the teachings of DEN BOER can only be considered in the vacuum of concentrator systems within skylights is not tenable.
In this same paragraph, the Applicant argues the instant invention is “designed to be installed as a construction material” such as a window or façade therefore since DEN BOER teaches a skylight, DEN BOER teaches “away from the present invention” since it “is designed not to be applied directly as constructure materials to be integrated to architectures as windows or facades due to the fact that the intense concentration of sunlight inevitably leads to a significant increase in the interior”.
The Examiner disagrees with this premise for multiple reasons. Firstly, there is no discussion of this pointed use of the claimed glazing panel as “construction materials to be integrated to architectures as windows or facades” within the claim, so this argument is not relevant. Since the combination rejection teaches a glazing panel, the claim is taught. Moreover, it is further unclear how a glass layer used within a photovoltaic skylight (as in how DEN BOER is utilized in the rejection) would not be analogous to glass within a window, since a skylight is a window.
Further, the Applicant is seemingly arguing since DEN BOER teaches only a concentrator system with a skylight, the skylight of DEN BOER and everything associated with the skylight (including the glass of a photovoltaic window, all DEN BOER is cited for within the rejection) would make the interior too warm. This would be an accurate problem if the glass of DEN BOER was only relevant to concentrator systems, but it is not. It is unclear why the Applicant is seeking to consider the reference as only a concentrator system, not present arguments relevant to the use of low iron glass which is not necessary or taught to be necessary to function only with concentrators (which could increase light to the interior in larger amounts than glass). It is clear the use of a particular glass in a photovoltaic within a skylight is analogous and would not teach away from glass used in a photovoltaic within a window as in HUANG et al, and consideration of the reference DEN BOER as only a concentrator system is not consistent with the interpretation within the rejection.
In the final sentence of the first paragraph of page 3 of the remarks, the Applicant argues the light transmission is indicative of “the entirety of the photovoltaic glass glazing panel”, not just the low-iron glazing.
The Examiner disagrees for two reasons. Firstly, the Examiner reads the claim as the panel needing to have a transmission in the range prescribed, not the entirety of the panel having the claimed transmission. In this instance, the panel (and in turn the low iron glazing) has a transmission as claimed (that of the low iron glazing). To be clear, as currently written, the transmission is not required to be indicative of the entirety of the glazing panel.
Moreover, even if one were to interpret the claim as requiring the entirety of the glazing panel, it is the position of the Examiner that the layered structure taught by the combination and assembled as detailed within the claim rejection would have the same transmission since the same components are present as assembled by the same method, just as in the rejection of the thermal transmission is disclosed.
At the top of page 4, the Applicant argues SYAFIQ et al teaches application of thermal insulation on the surface of the solar cell and therefore is silent to the coating on the outer surface of the external glazing.
It is unclear where the Applicant sees SYAFIQ as teaching that structure as no citation is given, but as cited by the Examiner above, the abstract and section 2 detail the use of coatings on the glass surfaces, as in the combination. It is unclear where the basis for the Applicant’s argument is derived.
In the first full paragraph of page 4, the Applicant states HAMMOND operations in microscale, but the instant module is “not in micrometres level” and therefore one wouldn’t be motivated to combine.
Firstly, as addressed in the rejection of claim 3, which this seemingly is to apply to, HUANG previously teaches the use of a sealant, wherein HAMMOND is only cited to show the use of adhesive for sealant. It is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to utilize an adhesive sealant (as in HAMMOND) as a sealant (in HUANG) regardless of sizing. There is no reason the same principal of sealing is not applicable regardless of sizing and especially when the sizing is so near in proximity (200 micron/.2 mm (HAMMOND) versus 5 mm (HUANG)).
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 KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 2/19/2026