DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Claims 2-5 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim 11 is amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ASBECK (US 20170117425 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ASBECK teaches a bifacial solar module (see the solar cell module with bifacial solar cells; see Figs. 4, 5), comprising:
a first transparent support layer (see the back cover 6, which is transparent to the light; see Fig. 4) and a second transparent support layer (see the front surface layer 5, which is transparent to the light; see Fig. 4);
a plurality of interconnected bifacial solar cells (see at least two adjoining bifacial solar cells 2; see Abstract, Claim 13, Figs. 4, 5) interposed between the first transparent support layer and the second transparent support layer (see Figs. 4, 5) with gaps between one or more of the plurality of interconnected bifacial solar cells and edges of the first and second transparent support layers (see the gaps between at least two adjoining bifacial solar cells 2 and the edges of the back cover 6 and the front surface layer 5) (see Figs. 4, 5), the plurality of interconnected bifacial solar cells having a first side (see the front side of the at least two adjoining bifacial solar cells 2) exposed to solar radiation and a second side (see the back side of the at least two adjoining bifacial solar cells 2) opposite the first side (see Figs. 4, 5);
a frame (see the frame 9) disposed about a perimeter of and supporting the first transparent support layer, the second transparent support layer, and the plurality of interconnected bifacial solar cells (see Figs. 4, 5); and
a projection disposed on a sidewall of the frame (see the reflector 4 disposed on the sidewall of the frame 9) (see Fig. 5), the projection extending from the sidewall toward an interior portion of the frame (The reflector 4 extends from the sidewall toward the interior portion of the frame 9) (see Figs. 4, 5) and disposed in spaced relation to the second transparent support layer (Since the reflector 4 is disposed on the back side of the back cover 6, the reflector 4 is disposed in spaced relation to the front surface layer 5) (see Figs. 4, 5), the projection angled to reflect light so that some of the light reflecting from the projection is absorbed by the first side and some of the light is absorbed by the second side of the plurality of bifacial solar cells (The reflector 4 is angled to reflect the incident light, which has the function) (see Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
ASBECK teaches some light that passes through the second transparent support layer is reflected off of a portion of the projection and absorbed by the first side of the plurality of bifacial solar cells via internal reflection (see Abstract, [0008], [0066], the rejection of claim 1, and Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
ASBECK teaches the projection is disposed adjacent a gap between the plurality of interconnected bifacial solar cells and the frame (see the rejection of claim 1, and Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
ASBECK teaches a reflective strip (see the adhesive tape strip; [0067] An adhesive tape strip can also be applied outside the rear-side as reflector 4) disposed coincidentally with at least one of the gaps (see Figs. 4, 5) such that light passing through the second transparent support layer is reflected off of a portion of the reflective strip at angles such that the light reflecting from the reflective strip is absorbed by either the first side or the second side of the plurality of bifacial solar cells (see Abstract, [0008], [0066], the rejection of claim 1, and Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding claim 11, ASBECK teaches a bifacial solar module (see the solar cell module with bifacial solar cells; see Figs. 4, 5), comprising:
a frame (see the frame 9), the frame including a projection disposed on a sidewall of the frame (see the reflector 4 disposed on the sidewall of the frame 9) (see Fig. 5), the projection extending from the sidewall towards an interior portion of the frame (see Fig. 5) and defining an angle relative to the sidewall (The reflector 4 has an angle relative to the sidewall of the interior portion of the frame 9) (see Figs. 4, 5);
a first transparent support layer (see the back cover 6, which is transparent to the light; see Fig. 4) and a second transparent support layer (see the front surface layer 5, which is transparent to the light; see Fig. 4) supported by the frame (see Figs. 4, 5);
a plurality of interconnected bifacial solar cells (see at least two adjoining bifacial solar cells 2; see Abstract, Claim 13, Figs. 4, 5) interposed between the first transparent support layer and the second transparent support layer (see Figs. 4, 5) with gaps between one or more of the plurality of interconnected bifacial solar cells, edges of the first and second transparent support layers, and the sidewall of the frame (see the gaps between at least two adjoining bifacial solar cells 2 and the edges of the back cover 6 and the front surface layer 5, and the sidewall of the frame 9) (see Figs. 4, 5), the plurality of interconnected bifacial solar cells having a first side (see the front side of the at least two adjoining bifacial solar cells 2) directly exposed to solar radiation (see Figs. 4, 5) and a second side (see the back side of the at least two adjoining bifacial solar cells 2) opposite the first side (see Figs. 4, 5), wherein light passing through the second transparent support layer is reflected off of a portion of the projection at angles such that the light reflecting from the projection is absorbed by either the first side or the second side of the plurality of bifacial solar cells (Figs. 4, 5 show this function).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 11.
ASBECK teaches a reflective strip (see the adhesive tape strip; [0067] An adhesive tape strip can also be applied outside the rear-side as reflector 4) disposed coincidentally with at least one of the gaps (see Figs. 4, 5) such that light passing through the second transparent support layer is reflected off of a portion of the reflective strip at angles such that the light reflecting from the reflective strip is absorbed by either the first side or the second side of the plurality of bifacial solar cells (see Abstract, [0008], [0066], the rejection of claim 1, and Figs. 4, 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASBECK (US 20170117425 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively above, further in view of GONSIORAWSKI (US 20080000517 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the projection defines an angle relative to the sidewall selected from the group consisting of generally about 1 and 80 degrees, 5 and 75 degrees, 10 and 70 degrees, 15 and 65 degrees, 20 and 60 degrees, 25 and 55 degrees, 30 and 50 degrees, 35 and 45 degrees, and 40 and 45 degrees”, ASBECK teaches the projection defines an angle relative to the sidewall about 90 degrees (see the rejections of claims 1, 11, and Figs. 4, 5), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed angle range. However, GONSIORAWSKI discloses a photovoltaic module with an internal reflector (corresponding to the claimed “projection”), wherein each facet may extend at an angle between 25 and 35 degrees relative to the plane of the front cover [0023] (Based on the disclosure, it is calculated that the internal reflector defines an angle between 55 and 65 degrees relative to the sidewall of the frame), wherein the internal reflector improves power output (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the internal reflector with an angle between 55 and 65 degrees relative to the sidewall of the frame for the reflector in the device of ASBECK as taught by GONSIORAWSKI, because the internal reflector improves power output and because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144). Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected angle within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASBECK (US 20170117425 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively above, further in view of SHUGAR (CA 2650053 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Regarding the claimed “wherein a portion of the projection is polished” in claim 9 and “wherein the projection is polished” in claim 12, ASBECK discloses the reflector 4 is applied by means of a surface treatment of the rear-side glass 6, for example by means of vaporization, etching, irradiation or grinding [0068], but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “polished”. However, SHUGAR discloses a PV assembly with a light-reflecting element, wherein light-reflecting element 26 may be made from a variety of materials having a highly light-reflecting upper surface 30, such as a polished metal sheet [0021]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the light-reflecting element with polished metal sheet for the reflector in the device of ASBECK as taught by SHUGAR, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ASBECK (US 20170117425 A1) as applied to claim 11, respectively above, further in view of WEBER (AU 2013201557 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 11.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the projection is painted”, ASBECK discloses the reflector 4 is applied by means of a surface treatment of the rear-side glass 6, for example by means of vaporization, etching, irradiation or grinding [0068], but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “painted”. However, WEBER discloses a solar cell with an optical reflector, a highly reflective lambertian (diffuse) reflector 24, such as a suitable white paint, has been applied to the rear surface (P16/L14-L15). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the suitable white paint for the reflector in the device of ASBECK as taught by WEBER, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/04/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that Asbeck is silent with respect to a projection disposed on a sidewall of a frame with the projection extending from the sidewall toward an interior portion of the frame as claimed in P7-P9, is not persuasive.
ASBECK teaches a side wall of a frame (see the side wall of the surrounding frame 9 in Fig. 5), and a projection disposed on a sidewall of a frame with the projection extending from the sidewall toward an interior portion of the frame (see Fig. 5; The reflector 4, which is projected from the frame 9, is disposed on the side wall of the frame 9 with the reflector 4 extending from the sidewall toward the interior portion of the frame 9).
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 extension fee 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 TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights