DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed December 16, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed December 16, 2025, the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent September 30, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed December 16, 2025, the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent September 30, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-15 are currently 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inaba et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0092795 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Inaba et al. discloses a photovoltaic module comprising:
a photovoltaic unit comprising a plurality of photovoltaic cells (a plurality of photovoltaic cells 5 and 3, Fig. 6-8)
electrically connected in series (as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 8, the cited plurality of photovoltaic cells 5/3 are electrically connected in series, or connected electrically one after another) and
spaced apart from one another (as depicted in Fig. 8, the cited plurality of photovoltaic cells 5/3 are laterally spaced apart from one another),
the adjacent photovoltaic cells being electrically connected pairwise by a metal interconnector (as depicted in Fig. 8, adjacent photovoltaic cells 5/3 being electrically connected pairwise by a metal interconnector 9)
which extends at least in part into an interconnection space separating said adjacent photovoltaic cells (as depicted in Fig. 8, the cited interconnector 9 extends at least in part into an interconnection space laterally separating said adjacent photovoltaic cells 5/3),
an encapsulation structure (such as 1/11a,b/13/17a,b, Fig. 7-8)
based on at least one polymer encapsulation material (such as the EVA polymer encapsulation material of component 11a,b; see [0053]),
which sandwiches opposite sides of the plurality of photovoltaic cells (as depicted in Fig. 8, the cited encapsulation structure 1/11a,b/13/17a,b sandwiches opposite top and bottom sides of the cited plurality of photovoltaic cells 5/3),
defining a region of cell coverage (such as depicted in Fig. 8, a region of cell coverage at cells 5/3), and
sandwiches the interconnector in the interconnection space, defining a region of interconnector coverage (as depicted in Fig. 8, sandwiches the interconnector 9 in the interconnection space, defining a region of interconnector coverage), and
a spacer incorporated into the encapsulation structure and partially superposed on the interconnector in the region of interconnector coverage (as depicted in Fig. 8, a spacer 12 incorporated into the cited encapsulation structure and partially superposed on the cited interconnector 9 in the cited region of interconnector coverage),
the spacer being made of a material having at least, at a temperature of -400C, a modulus of elasticity lower than a modulus of elasticity of the polymer encapsulation material (see [0054] teaching spacer made of silicone resin which is cited to provide for the claimed “having at least, at a temperature of -400C, a modulus of elasticity lower than a modulus of elasticity of the” cited EVA polymer encapsulation material).
With regard to claim 2, Inaba et al. discloses wherein
the material of the spacer has a modulus of elasticity more than 2 times lower than the modulus of elasticity of the polymer encapsulation material at a temperature of -400C (recall [0054] teaching spacer made of silicone resin and [0053] teaching polymer encapsulation material made of EVA).
With regard to claim 3, Inaba et al. discloses wherein
the material of the spacer has a modulus of elasticity lower than the modulus of elasticity of the polymer encapsulation material at a temperature of 200C (recall [0054] teaching spacer made of silicone resin and [0053] teaching polymer encapsulation material made of EVA).
With regard to claim 4, Inaba et al. discloses wherein
wherein the material of the spacer has a modulus of elasticity, measured at -400C, between 0.1 MPa and 300 MPa (recall [0054] teaching spacer made of silicone resin).
With regard to claim 7, Inaba et al. discloses wherein
the spacer takes the form of a strip (as depicted in Fig. 8, the cited spacer 12 takes the form of a strip).
With regard to claim 8, Inaba et al. discloses wherein
the spacer extends from one end to the other along the entire length, of the interconnection space between the adjacent photovoltaic cells, said length being measured parallel to a facing lateral sides of said adjacent cells (as depicted in Fig. 8, the cited spacer 12 extends from one end to the other along the entire length, of the cited interconnection space between the cited adjacent photovoltaic cells 5/3, said length being measured parallel to facing lateral sides of said adjacent cells 5/3).
With regard to claim 9, Inaba et al. discloses wherein
the photovoltaic module comprises a plurality of spacers at least partially covering the interconnector in the region of interconnector coverage (as depicted in Fig. 8, the photovoltaic module comprises a plurality of spacers, such as a spacer at the portion of 12 above interconnect 9 and a spacer at the portion of 12 below the interconnect 9, at least partially covering the cited interconnector 9 in the cited region of interconnector coverage).
With regard to claim 10, Inaba et al. discloses wherein, in a thickness of the PV module,
at least two spacers are arranged on either side of the interconnector (as depicted in Fig. 8, at least two spacers, such as a spacer at the portion of 12 above interconnect 9 and a spacer at the portion of 12 below the interconnect 9, arranged on either side of the cited interconnector 9).
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Inaba et al. discloses wherein
more than 70% by weight of the polymer encapsulation material is a polymer (recall [0053] teaching the polymer encapsulation material is an EVA polymer).
With regard to claim 13, Inaba et al. discloses wherein
the polymer encapsulation material is able to have a modulus of elasticity between 10 MPa and 10 GPa, at a temperature of -400C (recall [0053] teaching the encapsulation material is an EVA).
With regard to claim 14, Inaba et al. discloses process for manufacturing a photovoltaic module according to claim 1, the process comprising:
providing a multilayer stack (see Fig. 7-8) comprising
a photovoltaic unit comprising a plurality of photovoltaic cells (a plurality of photovoltaic cells 5 and 3, Fig. 6-8)
electrically connected in series (as depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 8, the cited plurality of photovoltaic cells 5/3 are electrically connected in series, or connected electrically one after another) and
spaced apart from one another (as depicted in Fig. 8, the cited plurality of photovoltaic cells 5/3 are laterally spaced apart from one another),
adjacent photovoltaic cells being electrically connected pairwise by an interconnector which extends at least in part into an interconnection space separating said adjacent photovoltaic cells (as depicted in Fig. 8, adjacent photovoltaic cells 5/3 being electrically connected pairwise by an interconnector 9 which extends at least in part into an interconnection space separating said adjacent photovoltaic cells 5/3),
a spacer which is at least partially superposed on the interconnector in the interconnection space (as depicted in Fig. 8, a spacer 12 which is at least partially superposed on the cited interconnector 9 in the cited interconnection space), and
at least two encapsulation layers sandwiching the photovoltaic unit (as depicted in Fig. 8, at least two encapsulation layers 1/11a,b/13/17a,b sandwiching the cited photovoltaic unit) and
thermoforming the multilayer stack until the photovoltaic module is obtained (see Fig. 8).
With regard to claim 15, Inaba et al. discloses wherein
the thermoforming is achieved via lamination of the multilayer stack between a heated bottom lamination plate and a membrane to which a fluid pressure is applied (as depicted in Fig. 8 and described in [0062], the thermoforming is achieved via lamination of the cited multilayer stack between a heated bottom lamination plate 19 and a membrane 21 to which a fluid pressure is applied).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0092795 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0301696 A1).
With regard to claim 5, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Inaba et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Inaba et al. teaches the material of the spacer is a silicone resin (recall [0054]) but does not teach wherein the material of the spacer is a silicone elastomer.
However, Watanabe et al. discloses a photovoltaic module (see Figure) and teaches a material of a spacer can include a silicone resin or a silicone rubber (see [0164]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the silicone rubber material of Watanabe et al. for the material of the spacer of Inaba et al. because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0092795 A1) in view of Cassagne et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0274012 A1).
With regard to claim 5, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Inaba et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Inaba et al. does not disclose wherein the spacer has a thickness between 100 µm and 1500 µm and/or a width between 100 µm and 15 µm.
However, Cassagne et al. discloses a photovoltaic module (see Title and Abstract) and teaches the thickness of spacer is a result effective variable directly affecting the costs related to the transport and weight thereof (see [0065]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thickness of the spacer in the photovoltaic module of Inaba et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the costs related to the transport and weight thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the newly added claimed limitations are not found within the previously presented prior art references. However, this argument is addressed in the rejections of the claims above.
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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 February 25, 2026